haha why did I write "0"? thanks for catching that!I hope that it doesn't go all the way to 0
Upvote
0
Canon RF 150-600mm f/5.6L IS USM added to the Super Telephoto Zoom Mystery
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
With the rumored death of the rumored the RF 200-500 f4, I'm hoping for a new rumor that the RF mount will be opened to third party lenses and there will soon be an RF version of the Sigma 300-600 f4. If Canon isn't going to give indoor sports shooters a zoom longer than 300mm, it'd be nice if they let someone else satisfy that need.
Upvote
0
Canon is definitely considering such designs. Please see the patent below. A 300 mm f2.8 to 600 mm f4.5 would be a phenomenal alternative to the Sigma design because it is one stop brighter at the 300 mm focal length
Canon Supertelephoto Zooms
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'd rather had a constant aperture lens than a stop lower. It's easier dealing with thousands of images in a denoise workflow if they all have consistent exposure settings than it is dealing with settings varying from shot to shot.
Upvote
0
Presumably Canon would want a licensing fee from Sigma. How large might that be to compensate for the loss in Canon's profits from not selling big whites? A thousand dollars or more per lens perhaps? Do you think Sigma would go for that deal?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I doubt that. At least if we talk about the supertele range, as we do here, the past decades tell us that Sigma isn't much faster with new lenses than Canon. They upgraded their longterm 150-500mm zoom (with medicro IQ) only because they were forced by Tamron to move into the 150-600mm range with the C and the Sports. And with a look on primes, Sigma had their 500mm f/4.5 (no IS) quite a while in their list until they upgraded to their 500mm f/4.0. Canon wasn't slow past years with their new RF supertele lenses - despite the fact that many of these new lenses are on the slow side
Upvote
0
Another person made a similar comment, hoping that a faster aperture could be achieved at the shorter focal lengths, and the answer does seem to be that it is not feasible, or at least would create a bigger heavier lens. I think the confusion arises from thinking a zoom is like a prime. A prime lens has the entrance pupil right at the front, so you can easily divide the diameter of the front element with the focal length and get the f-stop number. If you take a look into a zoom lens, you will see that the actual entrance pupil moves up and down the lens as you zoom. There are also optics that magnify the image. It's not like a prime.
A quick google search gives this AI explanation:
The movement of optical elements within the lens can also affect the amount of light that reaches the sensor. At shorter focal lengths, the optical elements might be physically limiting the amount of light that can pass through, even if the aperture is open.
And:
Entrance Pupil vs. Physical Aperture:
The f-number (and thus the apparent aperture size) is determined by the entrance pupil, which is the size of the aperture diaphragm as it appears from the front of the lens. When a zoom lens zooms, the optical elements move to change the focal length, and the amount of magnification between the front of the lens and the physical aperture diaphragm also changes.
Upvote
0
the lens I want to see is an RF-S 150-600mm f/5.6-8 IS USM
since birders tend to use crop bodies anyway, couldn't we carry a smaller lens around?
since birders tend to use crop bodies anyway, couldn't we carry a smaller lens around?
Upvote
0
You won't. A lens like that would cover a FF image circle anyway, so there is zero advantage to making it for crop bodies since it would be the same size and weight for crop or FF. Take a minute to check out the dimensions of the OM 150-600mm lens, for example. That lens is for m4/3 bodies (2x crop), but compare it to the 150-600mm lenses for FF from Sigma/Tamron. You'll see what I mean. In fact, there would only be downside for Canon to make an APS-C version of such a lens because it would mean limiting the market for it.
No, we don't. Maybe you do, and that's fine. Have a look through the bird portraits and BIF threads here, lots of FF cameras in use (probably more FF than crop). Granted, this forum is not representative of the broader market.
Upvote
0
I used to use crop for everything but once I went FF, I never went back and do not plan to ever do so.
Upvote
0
Off topic, but I can't resist....
To all the Canon-is-doomed-sayers: Just look at the Cannes Film Festival photographers's equipment. Canon, Canon and Canon.
Where are all "my pro friends jumping ship" and their Sonys? Not in Cannes, for sure!
To all the Canon-is-doomed-sayers: Just look at the Cannes Film Festival photographers's equipment. Canon, Canon and Canon.
Where are all "my pro friends jumping ship" and their Sonys? Not in Cannes, for sure!
Upvote
0
SONY IS DOOMEDDDDDDD?!!?!?!??!?!?!?Off topic, but I can't resist....
To all the Canon-is-doomed-sayers: Just look at the Cannes Film Festival photographers's equipment. Canon, Canon and Canon.
Where are all "my pro friends jumping ship" and their Sonys? Not in Cannes, for sure!
Upvote
0
My first FF body was the 5DII, but the 7D outperformed it for AF and speed so I continued using the crop body for fast-moving subjects. When the 1D X came out bringing speed to the FF 1-series, I still used a crop body for a small travel kit since it was hard to beat the EOS M and M-series lenses for that. I can fit an M6II, M11-22, M18-150 and M22/2 in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20.
However, I find that I can also fit the R8 with the RF 24-240 in the same bag, with enough room to add the RF 28/2.8 and RF 16/2.8 (I'd have to buy the latter), so I can cover the same range with FF in the same size kit. So I suspect my M6II will see less use, now. But even then, I have found that the Powershot V1 (a 2x crop) is a great little camera when I want something close to pocketable.
The bottom line is that main advantage of crop sensors is lower cost, and to a lesser extent lower system size/weight. There are potential advantages in select use cases, mainly those where you want the most possible pixels on target. Even it that case, IMO it's more about cost and weight. With 840mm f/5.6 or 1200mm f/8, I find that subject distances requiring significant cropping are usually already deleteriously affected by atmospheric artifacts such that more MP packed into a smaller sensor (or even more MP on a FF sensor) won't significantly help.
Upvote
0
The Sonnes film festival would be the opposite.Off topic, but I can't resist....
To all the Canon-is-doomed-sayers: Just look at the Cannes Film Festival photographers's equipment. Canon, Canon and Canon.
Where are all "my pro friends jumping ship" and their Sonys? Not in Cannes, for sure!
Upvote
0
I very frequently use 800mm for small birds at relatively close distances where atmospheric influences are unimportant. High density and crop sensors help there and also for high resolution near macro views of insects.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
