From experience, putting a RF 1.4x or RF 2x on an RF 100-400mm or 100-500mm on an R6 gives a good increase in resolution. On an R5, the 2x on the RF 100-500mm gives a 40% increase in reach and the 1.4x about 20%. On the R7, putting the 2x on the RF 100-500 gives about a 20% increase, and on the R7 only resolves a few percent more becuse of the brakes put on by diffraction. I use the RF 2x a lot with the Rf 100-500 on the R5, but I am tending to use the 100-400 without a TC on the R7.
The patent is on the Canonwatch site. What is odd, it also has a 100-400mm on it which appears to be the current RF 100-400mm lens.
I don’t find that odd. Rather, it’s pretty common. Canon usually files patents on batches of lenses with similar designs. Patent applications publish 18 months after filing, which is more than enough time to bring the lens to market prior to the patent publishing. Since filing the application establishes a priority date, there are no significant IP issues.
That does suggest we should stop speculating about the 150-600 f/11.
You must be a young fellow to think that a lens that came out in 2014 is an old lens! While the original EF 100-400 has been reported as being less successful in taking advantage of higher MP cameras such as the 90D, there should be no problem with the Mark II. Perhaps AlanF can verify, but I think comments from others have indicated that the EF 100-400 mark II is just as sharp as the RF 100-500. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'll be able to use this lens for the next 20-30 years with no problem.
Yes, indeed. The EF 100-400mm II is just as sharp as the RF 100-500mm to all intents and purposes. The prices for used ones have tumbled in the last year.
Most of my lenses came out before 2005, so 2014 is quite new in comparison. However if you buy any technical product and it came out eight years ago, that already seems old, even if I of course want to use it for decades into the future. When I bought my 70-200 f/2.8 IS (the first version) though, I also thought that the lens might be good for decades, but compared to other 70-200 lenses today even from Tamron and Sigma it does not really keep up. As long as I use cameras below 25 megapixels or so, that is hardly a problem, but if I had an R5 for example, the 70-200 would be high on my list of lenses to replace, because it simply is not sharp enough to really support such a resolution. Another lens that is far from today's standards is my 24-70 f/2.8 (also the first version). The corner sharpness does not seem acceptable to me today and it does not even have IS. Basically ANY other 24-70 option you can buy today is much better than the famous Canon lens, although I still love the fact that it retracts when zooming in, which gives the lens hood the perfect lenght at every focal length. So that is another lens that I thought I would buy for decades, but after less than two decades I hardly use it any more.
Took 33 hours to get to Reykjavik door to door and they lost my luggage for 11 days! I didn't have my tripod or filters or power point convertor but had the rest of my gear thankfully so had a great time
