Opticallimits

Full Version: Canon RF 50f1.8 RF 70-200f4 RF 800f11 and others coming
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(06-12-2020, 02:32 AM)Klaus Wrote: [ -> ]You aren't really a huge fan of a 50mm f/1.4 as far as I know ;-) You are more in the 85mm f/1.4 camp or longer.
That reminds me... The day I get a 85mm prime lens will be the day the Earth stands still. Smile I've been threatening to do that for a decade (and hinting even earlier, prolly as early as 2007), but nothing has come out of that so far.

Maybe I need to put a little money box with the inscription saying "For the photo editor's future 85mm lens" in the office, and by the time I'll have to retire, I'll maybe scrape enough for a EF 85/1.8. Big Grin

Jokes aside, the 70-200/4 IS lens for RF is another welcome development. Hopefully back to 67mm filter thread, too. Smile
SKU codes (stock keeping unit) have appeared for the lenses, so the rumours have become "true".

4515C005 Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM
4318C005 Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
4234C005 Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM
4112C005 Canon RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM
3986C005 Canon RF 600mm f/11 DO IS STM
3987C005 Canon RF 800mm f/11 DO IS STM
4113C005 and 4114C005 RF 1.4x and RF 2x

New rumours say that these will appear in 2021: RF 18-45mm IS STM, 24mm macro IS, 100-400mm IS USM.
I'm actually very interested in the 50 f1.8 and 85 f2 macro.
I wonder if the 85 will be a 1:2 or 1:1 macro.

These 2 lenses and a 24-105 f4 would be an almost ideal kit for me (20-80mm in place of the 24-105 would be the ideal one ;-)).
Tony Northrup has released a video on the new range of Canon's R series of lenses ....... I won't even bother linking it !!

he claims 11 inches length for the 600mm and 13 inches for the 800mm and a guesstimation  price of $1500 and $2,000 respectively ....

.........he claims the amazing compactness of length of the new Canon 600mm ............. so I measured it ........the Tamron G2 is 10 3/4 inches long inc. bayonet.......... of which 1/2 inch is bayonet inside the camera!! .... so 10 1/4 inches.

So for the G2 you get a 50% price saving ........ a minimum of 1 1/3 rd stop increase in light and the zoom  of the G2!

The viewers are obviously wildlife shooters ....... not one positive comment ..... not one ... all derisory !!

Ma Lord ....... I rest my case !!
(06-12-2020, 08:13 PM)davidmanze Wrote: [ -> ]Tony Northrup has released a video on the new range of Canon's R series of lenses ....... I won't even bother linking it !!

he claims 11 inches length for the 600mm and 13 inches for the 800mm and a guesstimation  price of $1500 and $2,000 respectively ....

.........he claims the amazing compactness of length of the new Canon 600mm ............. so I measured it ........the Tamron G2 is 10 3/4 inches long inc. bayonet.......... of which 1/2 inch is bayonet inside the camera!! .... so 10 1/4 inches.

So for the G2 you get a 50% price saving ........ a light of a minimum of 1 1/3 rd stop increase in light and the zoom  of the G2!

Uhmmm....
The Tamron zoom lens EXTENDS a lot when going to 600mm. So if you want to get an idea what he means with "amazing comopactness", compare it with your Nikkor 600mm f4, or with the Tamron extended to 600mm. 
The Tamron is 267.7mm collapsed to 150mm, and 344.3mm extended to 600mm (Canon mount).
Your Nikkor AF-S 600mm f4 FL VR is 432mm long according to Nikon USA.
The Canon EF 600mm f4 L IS USM III is 448mm long.
11 inch is 279mm long.
Kinda in line with the pretty neat Nikkor AF-S 500mm f5.6 PF VR, which measures 237mm in length (compare that to the Nikkor 500mm f4 (387mm) and you will call that PF lens amazingly compact too).

I think if you are honest, you can understand that that is indeed amazingly compact for a 600mm prime. Whether you would/should/could prefer a lens like that over a 150-600mm zoom that is faster, is a different matter. I bet the new Canon will be lighter than the zooms, though. Not that hard for an f11 lens.

Your Tamron must be broken though, if half an inch (~1 1/4th centimeters) goes inside the camera... The mirror of your DSLR will not survive. ;-)
(06-12-2020, 08:38 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2020, 08:13 PM)davidmanze Wrote: [ -> ]Tony Northrup has released a video on the new range of Canon's R series of lenses ....... I won't even bother linking it !!

he claims 11 inches length for the 600mm and 13 inches for the 800mm and a guesstimation  price of $1500 and $2,000 respectively ....

.........he claims the amazing compactness of length of the new Canon 600mm ............. so I measured it ........the Tamron G2 is 10 3/4 inches long inc. bayonet.......... of which 1/2 inch is bayonet inside the camera!! .... so 10 1/4 inches.

So for the G2 you get a 50% price saving ........ a light of a minimum of 1 1/3 rd stop increase in light and the zoom  of the G2!

Uhmmm....
The Tamron zoom lens EXTENDS a lot when going to 600mm. So if you want to get an idea what he means with "amazing comopactness", compare it with your Nikkor 600mm f4, or with the Tamron extended to 600mm. 
The Tamron is 267.7mm collapsed to 150mm, and 344.3mm extended to 600mm (Canon mount).
Your Nikkor AF-S 600mm f4 FL VR is 432mm long according to Nikon USA.
The Canon EF 600mm f4 L IS USM III is 448mm long.
11 inch is 279mm long.

I think if you are honest, you can understand that that is indeed amazingly compact for a 600mm prime. Whether you would/should/could prefer a lens like that over a 150-600mm zoom that is faster, is a different matter. I bet the new Canon will be lighter than the zooms, though. Not that hard for an f11 lens.

Your Tamron must be broken though, if half an inch (~1 1/4th centimeters) goes inside the camera... The mirror of your DSLR will not survive. ;-)

  Oh I'm honest BC, deadly so! ...... the real deal is what it's size is when it's in the bag ....... when you zoom you don't go .....
........ OMG look how unusable my G2 is now!! ....... you really don't ...... you just get the shot ...
 But I suppose I've got to get the tape measure out again .... exactly 12.7 mm or 3/8 ths of an inch into the camera ..... so you can bash me for 2.7mm if that makes you feel you've won some sort of hollow victory ..... Smile

   So that just leaves the rest ... it's a one trick pony ... dark aperture ..... not much smaller but lighter in the bag ...... a lens that can't produce what the G2 can (DOF as yet unproven AF-C on ML at F11 ..... sort of seriously huge) ...

and a whole bunch of regular wildlife folk who have little faith in it !!

Oh and they are the customers BTW .... or lost customers.

Surely Klaus is getting a taste to test the thing ....... just to prove me wrong ...... Smile
(06-12-2020, 09:05 PM)davidmanze Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2020, 08:38 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2020, 08:13 PM)davidmanze Wrote: [ -> ]Tony Northrup has released a video on the new range of Canon's R series of lenses ....... I won't even bother linking it !!

he claims 11 inches length for the 600mm and 13 inches for the 800mm and a guesstimation  price of $1500 and $2,000 respectively ....

.........he claims the amazing compactness of length of the new Canon 600mm ............. so I measured it ........the Tamron G2 is 10 3/4 inches long inc. bayonet.......... of which 1/2 inch is bayonet inside the camera!! .... so 10 1/4 inches.

So for the G2 you get a 50% price saving ........ a light of a minimum of 1 1/3 rd stop increase in light and the zoom  of the G2!

Uhmmm....
The Tamron zoom lens EXTENDS a lot when going to 600mm. So if you want to get an idea what he means with "amazing comopactness", compare it with your Nikkor 600mm f4, or with the Tamron extended to 600mm. 
The Tamron is 267.7mm collapsed to 150mm, and 344.3mm extended to 600mm (Canon mount).
Your Nikkor AF-S 600mm f4 FL VR is 432mm long according to Nikon USA.
The Canon EF 600mm f4 L IS USM III is 448mm long.
11 inch is 279mm long.

I think if you are honest, you can understand that that is indeed amazingly compact for a 600mm prime. Whether you would/should/could prefer a lens like that over a 150-600mm zoom that is faster, is a different matter. I bet the new Canon will be lighter than the zooms, though. Not that hard for an f11 lens.

Your Tamron must be broken though, if half an inch (~1 1/4th centimeters) goes inside the camera... The mirror of your DSLR will not survive. ;-)

  Oh I'm honest BC, deadly so! ...... the real deal is what it's size is when it's in the bag ....... when you zoom you don't go .....
........ OMG look how unusable my G2 is now!! ....... you really don't ...... you just get the shot ...
 But I suppose I've got to get the tape measure out again .... exactly 12.7 mm or 3/8 ths of an inch into the camera ......... so you can bash me for 2.7mm if that makes you feel you've won some sort of hollow victory ..... Smile

   So that just leaves the rest ...... dark aperture ..... not much smaller but lighter in the bag ...... a lens that can't produce what the G2 can (DOF as yet unproven AF-C on ML at F11 ..... sort of seriously huge) ...

and a whole bunch of regular wildlife folk who have little faith in it !!

Oh and they are the customers BTW .... or lost customers.

In all your honesty you still dishonestly misunderstand Tony Northrup. At 11" it really is an amazingly compact 600mm lens, just like the Nikkor 500 PF is amazingly compact for a 500mm lens.  

That you feel the need to dishonestly honest say it ain't so because extending tele zooms are less long is your choice. I could dishonestly bring up mirror lenses to ridicule Tony Northrup too. I honestly choose not to do that, though.
(06-12-2020, 09:22 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2020, 09:05 PM)davidmanze Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2020, 08:38 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2020, 08:13 PM)davidmanze Wrote: [ -> ]Tony Northrup has released a video on the new range of Canon's R series of lenses ....... I won't even bother linking it !!

he claims 11 inches length for the 600mm and 13 inches for the 800mm and a guesstimation  price of $1500 and $2,000 respectively ....

.........he claims the amazing compactness of length of the new Canon 600mm ............. so I measured it ........the Tamron G2 is 10 3/4 inches long inc. bayonet.......... of which 1/2 inch is bayonet inside the camera!! .... so 10 1/4 inches.

So for the G2 you get a 50% price saving ........ a light of a minimum of 1 1/3 rd stop increase in light and the zoom  of the G2!

Uhmmm....
The Tamron zoom lens EXTENDS a lot when going to 600mm. So if you want to get an idea what he means with "amazing comopactness", compare it with your Nikkor 600mm f4, or with the Tamron extended to 600mm. 
The Tamron is 267.7mm collapsed to 150mm, and 344.3mm extended to 600mm (Canon mount).
Your Nikkor AF-S 600mm f4 FL VR is 432mm long according to Nikon USA.
The Canon EF 600mm f4 L IS USM III is 448mm long.
11 inch is 279mm long.

I think if you are honest, you can understand that that is indeed amazingly compact for a 600mm prime. Whether you would/should/could prefer a lens like that over a 150-600mm zoom that is faster, is a different matter. I bet the new Canon will be lighter than the zooms, though. Not that hard for an f11 lens.

Your Tamron must be broken though, if half an inch (~1 1/4th centimeters) goes inside the camera... The mirror of your DSLR will not survive. ;-)

  Oh I'm honest BC, deadly so! ...... the real deal is what it's size is when it's in the bag ....... when you zoom you don't go .....
........ OMG look how unusable my G2 is now!! ....... you really don't ...... you just get the shot ...
 But I suppose I've got to get the tape measure out again .... exactly 12.7 mm or 3/8 ths of an inch into the camera ......... so you can bash me for 2.7mm if that makes you feel you've won some sort of hollow victory ..... Smile

   So that just leaves the rest ...... dark aperture ..... not much smaller but lighter in the bag ...... a lens that can't produce what the G2 can (DOF as yet unproven AF-C on ML at F11 ..... sort of seriously huge) ...

and a whole bunch of regular wildlife folk who have little faith in it !!

Oh and they are the customers BTW .... or lost customers.

In all your honesty you still dishonestly misunderstand Tony Northrup. At 11" it really is an amazingly compact 600mm lens, just like the Nikkor 500 PF is amazingly compact for a 500mm lens.  

That you feel the need to dishonestly honest say it ain't so because extending tele zooms are less long is your choice. I could dishonestly bring up mirror lenses to ridicule Tony Northrup too. I honestly choose not to do that, though.
 No,  I dishonestly misunderstand nothing at all !  ... in fact I wouldn't stoop to accusations of dishonesty BC ....... and am surprised at your's ... 
  
.....  what's your beef in all my reasoning?? .. you don't shoot wildlife  ... it's not your sphere ...... yet you've even ridiculed my bird shots openly here as an endless waste of time ......

Rule No 1 in photography BC ...... if you don't like someones photos you say nothing .... you may well think it ....but you don't say it ..... you comment only on the ones you appreciate ...... otherwise things become unpleasantly messy ....... but at the same time you don't turn round and tell them you know better ........
 
   That's why I stick to lenses ... they have no feelings so you can say what you want even if they have your oh so beloved brand name on them ... especially vapour-ware announcements that as yet have no soul !!
Very much the twilight zone, this discussion with you.

My beef? It is no secret that I am not a fan of Tony Northrup and his video's, he often is wrong. But he evidently is very right when he states that 11" is very compact for a 600mm lens. And then you criticise him for saying that. In an in my view dishonest manner. That is my beef. Saying the Tamron 150-600mm is less long at 150mm is just silly as rebuke to "this 600mm lens is amazingly compact". Just like it would be silly to bring up a Sigma 600mm f8 mirrorless as rebuke to the same thing.

And I have never ever ridiculed your bird shots, openly or in a hidden fashion. Why you think I did, no idea. I have no interest in birding, myself. I love birds, find them amazing and interesting, but have no interest in spending a lot of money to carry around a lot of weight into nature to make documentary images of birds in the distance or birds flying across the blue sky. I can't see myself hanging big framed prints of a bird like that on the wall, or someone else's wall. They will be fine for bird books, though. Birding is not my thing. Just like going to car shows for making photos of those cars with expensive gear is not my thing. For me, the artistic element is lacking.

I also do not think event photography is my thing, or wedding photography, or documentary sports photography. I also do not like making documentary images of flowers. If I make images with flowers, to me it is about atmosphere, emotion, composition, "painting with light".

So, if I say that I do not get birders (in general), or that birding is not for me, it is NOT ridiculing your bird shots. It just says that I am not into birding. And I certainly have never ridiculed or criticised any of your bird shots...
Maybe off topic, but even someone who doesn't like birds will start loving them after seeing Dave's pictures atmosphere, emotion, composition, "painting with light" are all well present in his pictures, I regularly check his portfolio and do enjoy them, I saw a few pictures from BC, and all of them have a beautiful twist, it's a totally different style but even the fingers of the same hand are different.
Maybe we need to bring back photo discussions here and talk actually photos along with gear, because at the end of the day, when seeing a picture people won't care if you used OVF or EVF nor if the gear is heavy or lightweight.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6