Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end
  

RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

  
 
jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


Tony5787 wrote:
What I donít understand with the external toggle-able extender is how can they combine a 1.4x and 2x design and not always lose 2 stops? Iíve always been of the impression that the loss of light with extenders is due to the increased distance of the rear of the lens to the sensor, is that not the case?


Think of it this way, let's assume the lens is set at 400mm. All the light from that lens at f/4 is going in to an image circle large enough to cover your sensor.

The 1.4 TC comes in, and stretches the center portion of the image to be 560mm image scale. The outside of your image circle that was the difference between 400mm field of vie wand 560mm field of view is no longer hitting the sensor. It may be clipped off by the TC elements and not just spilling to the area around the sensor, but the moral of the story is only light from the 560mm equivalent field of view is hitting your sensor. So less light is hitting your sensor, equivalent to the 1 stop we know we lose from 1.4 TCs.

2x TC is the same thing, but its stretching that 800mm equivalent field of view harder to cover your sensor. Same concept, more stretching = less light. 2 stops worth in this case.

So that's why it would be 1 stop when 1.4 and 2 stops when 2x. The same total light is coming in the front of the lens - nothing has changed there. The 1.4x stretches that image less and keeps more of the original light. The 2x stretches more and keeps less of the original light.

-Brian




May 19, 2023 at 03:04 PM
RobAmy
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


This will be more than the RF 100-300 f2.8 pricing for sure. Seems odd timing to announce it before the release of the 100-300mm, it may hurt sales of that lens. Granted one is f2.8 but it should be a good 420mm f4 also but I see it hurting sales not helping sales. That said I see the 200-500mm selling well depending on price.

It will be interesting to see the 2x extender on the 100-300mm @ 600mm f5.6 vs the 200-500mm with the 1.4x @ 700mm f5.6

For me already owning the RF 400mm f2.8 I think there would be too much overlap and I would lose the f2.8. I think the RF 100-300mm will be a better pairing. Both interesting lens.

Looking forward to that TC design, I would be happy even with just a flippable 1.4x.



May 19, 2023 at 04:06 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


Imagemaster wrote:
Gee Canon not making a lens that everyone wants, just like Nikon and Sony don't.

Just go buy an Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO Lens for $7,500.

Internal zoom at f4.5 through full zoom, with built-in 1.25 TC. 2x crop factor on M4/3 body.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1574176-REG/olympus_m_zuiko_digital_ed_150_400mm.html


That lens is never in stock.

EBH



May 19, 2023 at 05:17 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


Tony5787 wrote:
What I donít understand with the external toggle-able extender is how can they combine a 1.4x and 2x design and not always lose 2 stops? Iíve always been of the impression that the loss of light with extenders is due to the increased distance of the rear of the lens to the sensor, is that not the case?


Was it mentioned that the new TC will be a combined 1.4x/2x unit? That would be easier to do.

EBH



May 19, 2023 at 05:19 PM
cohenfive
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


My gut reaction is disappointment that there is no internal 1.4x tc. This lens seems like 'old school' thinking on canon's part. To compete with nikon's innovative long lenses they should have put a tc in there. With a tc the lens would have been much more useful for wildlife/action shooters and they could have jacked the price up to make more money as well. The nikon 600tc is $15k after all, and they sell for even more in the used market.


May 19, 2023 at 06:35 PM
Tony5787
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


EB-1 wrote:
Was it mentioned that the new TC will be a combined 1.4x/2x unit? That would be easier to do.

EBH


They didnít mention it in todayís post but a few years ago there was a patent for a 1-1.5x-2x extender:

https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-a-zoom-teleconverter-1-0x-1-5x-2-0x/

Iím dumb when it comes to patents so I might be misinterpreting it but it seems like instead of a teleconverter that swings into place from the side, it would literally be a zoom. As far I can tell it looks like instead of a zoom ring there would be a switch almost like a circular polarizer that you could turn to reach each level of magnification.



May 19, 2023 at 07:04 PM
Peter Figen
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


jedibrain wrote:
Think of it this way, let's assume the lens is set at 400mm. All the light from that lens at f/4 is going in to an image circle large enough to cover your sensor.

The 1.4 TC comes in, and stretches the center portion of the image to be 560mm image scale. The outside of your image circle that was the difference between 400mm field of vie wand 560mm field of view is no longer hitting the sensor. It may be clipped off by the TC elements and not just spilling to the area around the sensor, but the moral
...Show more

No, it's more that your f/4 aperture is a constant, let's say 125mm on a 500mm lens, y'know, 500 divided by 4 =125. Increase the focal length to 1000mm with a 2X converter and you still got the 125mm aperture but now that computes to f/8 rather than f/4 - again, do the match 1000 divided by 125 = 8. That's why there's a loss of light, not some idea that the image is stretched ro whatever you were saying. It's simple math.



May 19, 2023 at 07:11 PM
Tony5787
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


cohenfive wrote:
My gut reaction is disappointment that there is no internal 1.4x tc. This lens seems like 'old school' thinking on canon's part. To compete with nikon's innovative long lenses they should have put a tc in there. With a tc the lens would have been much more useful for wildlife/action shooters and they could have jacked the price up to make more money as well. The nikon 600tc is $15k after all, and they sell for even more in the used market.


So the more that Iím thinking about this the more that this seems to make sense, both from a usability and business sense. If they release a zooming extender not only are they making a combo thatís more useful than a lens with a single 1.4x extender built-in, theyíre releasing lenses that are lighter and cheaper by default than they would have been had they had the internal extenders. This benefits everyone really, the cost of each lens plus the new extender will probably cost about as much as if theyíd released the lenses with the built-in extenders. For the people who donít need or want the extenders though, theyíve provided a cheaper and lighter solution. Itís a way for them to give everyone what they want, potentially with even more flexibility if the extender goes from 1x-2x.

I just ordered an RF 400 after deciding that even if this lens were to be released, it wouldnít be for me and this rumor doesnít change that. I just hope that the new extender works with the 400 as well as these zooms, a 400 f/2.8 that can go to 560mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6 without taking the lens off the body is the dream lens for me.



May 19, 2023 at 07:19 PM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


There is no way you can make a flippable external TC that works on all lenses. When the TC gets flipped out of the way the thing would act like an extension tube. I guess there could be other elements in the TC that never get flipped out of the way but that would be changing the optical formula of all lenses it mounts to.

The only way this could work is if Canon specifically designed the 100-300 and 200-500 to work with this flippable TC. But then it won't work on the other lenses.

When the TC is built in it is never at the rear end of the lens and of course it is designed specifically to be inserted and removed in that lens design only.



May 19, 2023 at 07:34 PM
Tony5787
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


arbitrage wrote:
There is no way you can make a flippable external TC that works on all lenses. When the TC gets flipped out of the way the thing would act like an extension tube. I guess there could be other elements in the TC that never get flipped out of the way but that would be changing the optical formula of all lenses it mounts to.

The only way this could work is if Canon specifically designed the 100-300 and 200-500 to work with this flippable TC. But then it won't work on the other lenses.

When the TC is built in it
...Show more

If you look at the patent it doesnít flip out of the way, it seems to literally be a zoom mechanism with a slider that has detents at the middle and far ends for 1x, 1.5x, and 2x. Even if it was designed with the 100-300 and 200-500 in mind itís like you said, it would just be an extension tube.



May 19, 2023 at 08:12 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

armd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


EB-1 wrote:
The difference in length between the 500/4 IS II and EF 600/4 IS III is about 2.5".
The 600/4 RF is 3.5" longer than the 500/4 IS II and at 18.6" is a real problem in camera bags. The difference in diameter between 500/4 and 600/4 is about an inch and the 600 lens hood is larger.
If Canon made an RF 600/4 at the same length as the EF 600/4 IS II including an internal 1.4x like Nikon, that would be an attractive option.

EBH


Therein lies a major issue and why I tended to travel with the 500/f IS II. With the release of the 100-500, both the 500/600 primes seem to reside on the shelf more and more especially when traveling to places with good light. In my estimation, Canon is ignoring a valuable contingent of the market. What you failed to include was the following:

Nikon 800 f/6.3 VR S, 5.5 x 15.2", 5.2#
Nikon 600 f/4 VR S, 6.5 x 17.2", 7.2# + built in TC
Canon 600 f/4 RF ,6.6 x 18.6", 6.8# & nearly 2x price of the Nikon 800 and a few hundo less than the Nikon 600 with the tc.



May 19, 2023 at 10:08 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


If I could fit Canons on Nikons or vice versa, my life would be easier.
The 600/4 RF really stretches my camera bag and the Nikon is a newer, shorter and more versatile lens. However, the Canon 100-500 is unique. Mostly I keep the 1.4x III on the 500/4 IS II. I have no use for big teles in the states, so I have to travel with all the lenses.

EBH



May 19, 2023 at 10:41 PM
bman212121
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


RobAmy wrote:
This will be more than the RF 100-300 f2.8 pricing for sure. Seems odd timing to announce it before the release of the 100-300mm, it may hurt sales of that lens. Granted one is f2.8 but it should be a good 420mm f4 also but I see it hurting sales not helping sales. That said I see the 200-500mm selling well depending on price.

It will be interesting to see the 2x extender on the 100-300mm @ 600mm f5.6 vs the 200-500mm with the 1.4x @ 700mm f5.6

For me already owning the RF 400mm f2.8 I think there would be
...Show more

Not buying one product to buy another, more expensive one instead? I believe marketing has a term for that.



May 19, 2023 at 11:09 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR




That lens is never in stock.

EBH


Never? Don't be daft. How do you think these people got one

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1716669



May 19, 2023 at 11:40 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


Tony5787 wrote:
If you look at the patent it doesnít flip out of the way,


What does it matter what the patent shows? Do you know how many Canon patents never result in the product being made



May 19, 2023 at 11:44 PM
ruralmontanan
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


Lots of assumptions being made on this flippable teleconverter. Indeed if thereís a 1.4/2x flippable external TC that works with more than just one or two $15k lenses, Iím interested. Iíll wait to see it to believe it because typically thereís always a catch with Canon, and they charge us more for the privilege.

Iím personally in the camp that wants them to compete with the mid-priced PF lenses that Nikon is putting out. Give me the R1 with one fast 600mm, built in TC, a couple of DOs that arenít f/11, and the 100-500mm, and Iíll quit stalking these forums and go shoot more. Seems pretty simple to me but these companies have to overcomplicate it to keep us interested and spending.



May 20, 2023 at 12:51 AM
jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR




Peter Figen wrote:
No, it's more that your f/4 aperture is a constant, let's say 125mm on a 500mm lens, y'know, 500 divided by 4 =125. Increase the focal length to 1000mm with a 2X converter and you still got the 125mm aperture but now that computes to f/8 rather than f/4 - again, do the match 1000 divided by 125 = 8. That's why there's a loss of light, not some idea that the image is stretched ro whatever you were saying. It's simple math.


Youbare describing exactly the same 'stretching' I did. I just used conceptual terms. You showed the math. The light cone the lens makes would converge to a 400mm field of view. It has to get widened or stretched by the tc optics to fill the sensor with a 550mm field of view. The math you show calculates why that works out to a 1 stop loss of brightness.

Brian



May 20, 2023 at 06:38 AM
armd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


ruralmontanan wrote:
Iím personally in the camp that wants them to compete with the mid-priced PF lenses that Nikon is putting out. Give me the R1 with one fast 600mm, built in TC, a couple of DOs that arenít f/11, and the 100-500mm, and Iíll quit stalking these forums and go shoot more. Seems pretty simple to me but these companies have to overcomplicate it to keep us interested and spending.


Here, here! Nikon is a shell of a company though it's hard to ignore their products in this target market. Now, if they could only produce the goods, I might sell the farm.



May 20, 2023 at 07:11 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR




Never? Don't be daft. How do you think these people got one

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1716669


It probably was not by waiting for BH stock.

EBH



May 20, 2023 at 09:15 AM
Tony5787
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR


Imagemaster wrote:
What does it matter what the patent shows? Do you know how many Canon patents never result in the product being made


If Canon is going to put out a zooming teleconverter my guess is it would probably be pretty close to the patent? Also why so heated when itís literally just speculation based on a patent? I canít stand this forum sometimes, you canít have a civil conversation about anything itís insane.



May 20, 2023 at 11:10 AM
1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.