technic wrote:
[..] Question is what will be sacrificed in order to get there (AF speed, weather sealing, decent MF, build quality, optics quality?).
[..]
Both the 600/11 and 800/11 are non-L lenses, so no weather sealing and lots of plastic are a given. And since they are also STM, AF won't be as fast as USM and MF will be focus-by-wire.
And the 100-500 + 1.4x TC in the APS-C mode will get you a very respectable reach for bird photography.
arbitrage wrote:
That is actually a really good question. I think the 100-500 will be priced just like the EF 100-400II at around $2200. I think this 600DO f/11 will have to be priced under $1500 to make any sense. Same with the 800DO.
With the 100-500 and 1.4TC you will end up with a 700 f/10 so I guess price and weight will be the factors in favour of the 600 prime??
*Although RF pricing can be a bit crazy...if we look at the 70-200/2.8 that is $1899 for EF and $2699 for RF...so who knows where the 100-500 or DO primes will fall.......Show more →
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Lens roadmap for 2021 shows non L, 100-400, anyone care to speculate if it will be a 100-400 f/6.3-8 and priced at $799 (still way too dear)
Sounds likely. More likely than f/5 - f/6.3 after the recent leaks. But $899 I'm afraid.
Sy Sez wrote:
F11 has generally been considered the Landscape "sweet-spot" for "adequate" DOF with minimal diffraction.
Diffraction happens at every aperture - the whole issue of diffraction is whether it has a visible effect on the image when viewed or printed. The blur may be small so it doesn't get enlarged beyond the smallest point the viewer can discern, or, if it's a large print, it may be enlarged to a size beyond the finest detail available from a wider aperture. Just like blur from being slightly OOF, it may or may not be noticeable/detectable (that's why such OOF blur causes DoF to depend on print size/viewing distance). By f/11 it is often true that lens imperfections no longer dominate mtf and the downhill loss of mtf as one goes to higher f numbers is inescapable (see the plot). Can you see this in small reduced images online? Rarely. Can you see it in a big print (or one cropped for reach and enlarged to more than FF) scrutinized carefully? Sure, if it's big enough. Can much of it be removed by judicious (e.g. deconvolution) post processing? Yup. When does it bother you? Subjective (like some can't tolerate any noise in a capture and others are happy learning to apply NR skillfully )
As for the teles that are f/11 wide open, it will be interesting to see whether it follows the general guidance "IQ improves a bit stopped down a stop or two". Only if manufacturing quality is poor might that happen at these FLs.
I may be wrong but I believe diffraction is possibly less of a problem with a wide angle lens vs a super-telephoto lens where the angle of view is so much narrower or the magnification is so much higher.
Sy Sez wrote:
F11 has generally been considered the Landscape "sweet-spot" for "adequate" DOF with minimal diffraction.
How well these lens's perform wide open is an unknown, and they'll fall short of being bokeh champs by a long shot.
Canon's use of STM Stepper AF motor's, in these RF DO's would seem to suggest they are prioritized for video?
bobbytan wrote:
I may be wrong but I believe diffraction is possibly less of a problem with a wide angle lens vs a super-telephoto lens where the angle of view is so much narrower or the magnification is so much higher. It just depends on the aperture and how much the acquired image is enlarged for viewing. How it compares with imperfections from compromises in optical formula is what varies (see the plot - some highly rated lenses of a range of FL, chosen to make this point when I compiled the plot )
AJSJones wrote:
It just depends on the aperture and how much the acquired image is enlarged for viewing. How it compares with imperfections from compromises in optical formula is what varies (see the plot - some highly rated lenses of a range of FL, chosen to make this point when I compiled the plot )
I know that several of my Canon WA lenses (like the 10-18 and 15-85 in the WA range) suffer badly as soon as I go past f/8 (on 80D body). I avoid those smaller apertures like the plague and the few times I use if for maximum DOF I'm almost always disappointed with the low quality result
It depends very much on the lens - some are way worse at small apertures than others.
technic wrote:
I know that several of my Canon WA lenses (like the 10-18 and 15-85 in the WA range) suffer badly as soon as I go past f/8 (on 80D body). I avoid those smaller apertures like the plague and the few times I use if for maximum DOF I'm almost always disappointed with the low quality result
It depends very much on the lens - some are way worse at small apertures than others.
Diffraction is the same for all lenses at any particular f-stop but optical compromises in lenses vary all over the place If they are way worse at smaller apertures, that's a combination of diffraction and (poor) optical design. See how all the lenses above, even some of the bestest are not immune to loss of resolution (MTF50 lp/mm) as you stop down, and converge to the "best possible MTF limited by given diffraction" line.
Sy Sez wrote:
F11 has generally been considered the Landscape "sweet-spot" for "adequate" DOF with minimal diffraction.
How well these lens's perform wide open is an unknown, and they'll fall short of being bokeh champs by a long shot.
Canon's use of STM Stepper AF motor's, in these RF DO's would seem to suggest they are prioritized for video?
800 f/11 has same DoF as 400 f/5.6 for equal subject distance, you will still get similar bokeh quality in most cases and the 400 f/5.6 is quite good and can easily demolish backgrounds. It will be interesting to see if the 800 f/11 has higher max magnification than the 400 f/5.6
A similar demonstration to what I've been trying to show in this thread. 600/800 f/11 is not a lost cause for certain types bird photography. But certainly won't be able to handle everything an f/4 lens can do.
arbitrage wrote:
A similar demonstration to what I've been trying to show in this thread. 600/800 f/11 is not a lost cause for certain types bird photography. But certainly won't be able to handle everything an f/4 lens can do.
Who knows, maybe Canon is going after the bird watchers and trying to get them to buy a (newer) Canon by offering an attractive birding lens - this group in general cares more about reach than about DOF control or IQ, and they often have lots of money to spend. Of course you also have to buy an R camera (and better not the RP, R6 or similar lo-res model) to really profit from these lenses.
Regardless of how light, & compact these rather "slow" lens's are; hand-holding ability will surely put the R5, / R6 IBIS +Lens IS stabilization, and high ISO performance to the test, in all but the brightest scenarios.
technic wrote:
Who knows, maybe Canon is going after the bird watchers and trying to get them to buy a (newer) Canon by offering an attractive birding lens - this group in general cares more about reach than about DOF control or IQ, and they often have lots of money to spend. Of course you also have to buy an R camera (and better not the RP, R6 or similar lo-res model) to really profit from these lenses.
When I do walk around birding I usually go in cloudy bright or sunny conditions. I usually just set SS to 1/400 as I never need more than that for perched birds. Sometimes I even run at 1/320 or 1/250 with any camera with good IBIS/IS. In that situation the f/11 will give me those shutter speeds at a still reasonable ISO for modern sensors. Full sun should be at ISO 200-400, cloudy-bright maybe ISO 800-1600.
If I'm going to shoot swallows in flight, I usually only do that in sunny conditions. That would allow me to reach my comfortable shutter speed level for swallows of 1/2000 at f/11 ISO 1000-2000....again no issue at those ISOs for the sensors I use these days (especially with Topaz Denoise magic added into the mix).
I usually don't take too many shots even with my f/4 lens that don't have distant clean background already. In those situations f/11 will still be just as buttery smooth as f/4. It will only be for birds perched in more clutter where the f/11 will maybe ruin the shot with more distracting bokeh.
Bottom line, I still don't think this lens will only be for people that don't care about DOF or IQ. I think it may end up being an option many will entertain if they are looking for a lighterweight walkaround bird photography (or birding ID) lens. My only worry is how long these lenses are going to be...seems like they may be overly long if the patent is correct??
arbitrage wrote:
My only worry is how long these lenses are going to be...seems like they may be overly long if the patent is correct??
There are rumors that these could be collapsible. I don't think we've ever seen a collapsible super-telephoto prime before. Also I wonder if this lens would be a fixed aperture lens. Might save on the cost. Don't think anyone wants to stop these down any further anyway
NonDecaf wrote:
There are rumors that these could be collapsible. I don't think we've ever seen a collapsible super-telephoto prime before. Also I wonder if this lens would be a fixed aperture lens. Might save on the cost. Don't think anyone wants to stop these down any further anyway
That would be pretty slick if they were collapsible for packing or when walking through thick brush.
