Canon RF 150-600mm f/5.6L IS USM added to the Super Telephoto Zoom Mystery

[EricN]

And wondered why he had shot so many night pictures!

How did you know? When I look at my photos it's all star photos that I must have taken when I couldn't sleep but forgot about.

 

[Del Paso]

How did you know? When I look at my photos it's all star photos that I must have taken when I couldn't sleep but forgot about.

I know everything thanks to Fox News !
PS:

 

[EricN]

I know everything thanks to Fox News !
PS:

Is this QAnonrumors?

 

[AlanF]

You probably left the lens cap on.

As f tends to zero, the f-number gets smaller and smaller, and so suitable for macros in near total darkness.

 

[EricN]

As f tends to zero, the f-number gets smaller and smaller, and so suitable for macros in near total darkness.

The lens cap would be f/∞, correct?

 

[mimbu]

And I couldn\'t wait to see someone bixching about this lens is going to be too expensive for them.

Internal zoom 150-600 f5.6 with 1.4 teleconverters will be 210-840 f8, which will compete well with Sony 400-800GM if Canon priced it around 2700~3000 USD.

Canon charged $12k for the 200-400/4L TC lens. A 150-600/5.6L TC would have a larger front element and is unlikely to be less expensive than the 200-400. If it has no TC then maybe $8k.

 

[AlanF]

The lens cap would be f/∞, correct?

In the sense that as f tends to ∞ so does the f-number, you are indeed correct.

 

[DetroitPhotograph]

I didn't know we knew that, but for a 600/4 + 1.4x...

View attachment 223965

Question for you - in view of the ever increasing quality and accuracy of AI in post - bokeh, sharpening, upscaling, and noise reduction - do you think that an image produced from a 600mm F5.6 zoom (of L quality) will be at all different from an identical image produced with the 600 F4 prime? In other words, will AI eventually make the big white primes "practically" obsolete? Im not sure if the human eye will be able to tell the difference. Just wondering your thoughts.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Question for you - in view of the ever increasing quality and accuracy of AI in post - bokeh, sharpening, upscaling, and noise reduction - do you think that an image produced from a 600mm F5.6 zoom (of L quality) will be at all different from an identical image produced with the 600 F4 prime? In other words, will AI eventually make the big white primes "practically" obsolete? Im not sure if the human eye will be able to tell the difference. Just wondering your thoughts.

For ‘pure IQ’, I think we’re beyond the point where a prime is reliably better than a zoom. But there would still be a 1-stop difference. The difference doesn’t seem like much but it is a doubling of the amount of light and a shallower DoF. For long lenses, that’s expensive.

Take the current lens of your choice, say a 70-200/2.8. Take a shot at 200/2.8 and 200/4. Can you tell the difference? It probably depends. With a more distant subject in good light, probably not. With a close subject and/or when light is limiting (keeping in mind that with fast-moving subjects like BIF, at a 1/2000 s shutter speed light becomes limiting when it still seems pretty bright)? Probably.

Of course, it’s going to be easier to see the difference if you directly compare the two shots. So another way to think about it is if you just took a shot at 600/5.6, would you have deleted it (too noisy, background too busy, etc.) whereas if the shot was at 600/4 you’d have kept it?

Sometimes a stop of aperture matters. Keep in mind that those improvements in NR, upscaling, etc., apply to an f/4 lens just as they do to an f/5.6 lens. The improvements to DxO’s NR means I can get about two extra stops of ISO. A decade ago, I preferred to stay at ISO 6400 or lower but would push to 12800 if needed. Currently, I go up to ISO 25600 routinely and even 51200 is ok on my R1…but 102400 is too noisy for me. So that extra stop I get from a 600/4 over a 600/5.6 means I can shoot in half as much light.

 

[john1970]

For ‘pure IQ’, I think we’re beyond the point where a prime is reliably better than a zoom. But there would still be a 1-stop difference. The difference doesn’t seem like much but it is a doubling of the amount of light and a shallower DoF. For long lenses, that’s expensive.

Take the current lens of your choice, say a 70-200/2.8. Take a shot at 200/2.8 and 200/4. Can you tell the difference? It probably depends. With a more distant subject in good light, probably not. With a close subject and/or when light is limiting (keeping in mind that with fast-moving subjects like BIF, at a 1/2000 s shutter speed light becomes limiting when it still seems pretty bright)? Probably.

Of course, it’s going to be easier to see the difference if you directly compare the two shots. So another way to think about it is if you just took a shot at 600/5.6, would you have deleted it (too noisy, background too busy, etc.) whereas if the shot was at 600/4 you’d have kept it?

Sometimes a stop of aperture matters. Keep in mind that those improvements in NR, upscaling, etc., apply to an f/4 lens just as they do to an f/5.6 lens. The improvements to DxO’s NR means I can get about two extra stops of ISO. A decade ago, I preferred to stay at ISO 6400 or lower but would push to 12800 if needed. Currently, I go up to ISO 25600 routinely and even 51200 is ok on my R1…but 102400 is too noisy for me. So that extra stop I get from a 600/4 over a 600/5.6 means I can shoot in half as much light.

Excellent insights.

 

[LuckyOne]

I would buy a 150-600 f/5.6 to replace my beloved 100-500 f/4.5 to f/7.1 if all of the following were true :

- Internal zoom for safari use. I know that this is not completely rational but it is important to me in dusty environments despite evidence to the contrary from people who are much more skilled than me
- L quality IQ and general build quality including weather sealing
- IQ that is at least slightly better than my 100-500 f/4.5 to f/7.1 and hopefully much better
- Around $5,000 in price
- Around 12” / 30 cm in length
- Around 2.5 kg / 6 lb in weight
- The ability to use a 1.4x or 2x converter across the entire original focal length
- External rather than internal converters

 

[stillviking]

Can't wait for this, when it will be announced?

 

[EricN]

Can't wait for this, when it will be announced?

After RF 35mm F1.2L, according to my tea leaves, but my entrails say, at the same time as High resolution R5.

 

[Quack]

Can't wait for this, when it will be announced?

Just a rumor. Little reason to think it will become reality, considering all the differing rumors about these possible new super telephotos.

 

[roby17269]

After RF 35mm F1.2L, according to my tea leaves, but my entrails say, at the same time as High resolution R5.

I have it on good sources that both will be announced Sept 36 2026i

 

[EricN]

I have it on good sources that both will be announced Sept 36 2026i

That's just in time for the Rapture, which will occur on the 42nd day of that month!

 

[roby17269]

That's just in time for the Rapture, which will occur on the 42nd day of that month!

As long as I get the 35 before that, I can leave this mortal coil a happy man

 

[EricN]

As long as I get the 35 before that, I can leave this mortal coil a happy man

I'm going to do something blasphemous at the last moment so I can take photos from the ground of people floating up into Heaven, the comet or UFO mothership...

 

[roby17269]

I'm going to do something blasphemous at the last moment so I can take photos from the ground of people floating up into Heaven, the comet or UFO mothership...

You're soooo evil! that angle would be super unflattering for the chosen ones

 

[Del Paso]

After RF 35mm F1.2L, according to my tea leaves, but my entrails say, at the same time as High resolution R5.

I didn't know you had already performed seppuku. Was it painful? More than missing the RF 1,2/35?