I wonder if the aperture is really fixed?
Would it ever make sense to stop down with such a lens?
(06-25-2020, 12:33 PM)Klaus Wrote: [ -> ]Would it ever make sense to stop down with such a lens?
Probably not, that's why they could probably save on the aperture mechanism. If they're cutting corners why not start with the most obvious one.
One question, will those lenses suffer from diffraction already at maximum aperture ?? Once stepped down how would the output look at f32 or even f64 ?
(06-26-2020, 09:56 AM)toni-a Wrote: [ -> ]One question, will those lenses suffer from diffraction already at maximum aperture ?? Once stepped down how would the output look at f32 or even f64 ?
Yes of course, all lenses suffer from diffraction at maximum/any aperture. It depends on the sample frequency how you rate if the result is acceptable. Most lenses wide open suffer from worse aberrations/distortions/defects than diffraction itself, which then masks the diffraction.
In this case, I doubt that the lens(es) will have other issues wide open that are so bad that it will mask the diffraction. And the diffraction probably will be comparable to other 600mm and 800mm lenses at f11, because the DO elements sit in front of the aperture and will not shorten the distance of aperture to imaging plane much.
Canon's software (DPP and internal camera conversion) can get rid of some of the diffraction softening, by applying deconvolution algorithms.
I'd say that at 600/800mm diffraction is usually not the problem. You tend to have quite a distance to your subject with such lenses thus air diffusion becomes an issue.
That's already noticeable in lab conditions and it's worse in real life, of course.
I remember watching a video about a new technology by Canon specifically for air diffusion for tele lenses photography... will try to find it