Canon patents optical formula for an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,504
17,256
If your looking for a bit more reach and happy to accept a little more noise (Higher ISO) you should consider the RF 800mm F11, you can use this as a walk around lens and won't have to worry about a tripod.
I have the 800mm f/11 and use it frequently, and it is a useful specialist lens. But, it's no substitute as a general lens for the RF 100-500mm or the EF 100-400mm (plus extenders). For a start, the mfd is 6m, which is limiting. Importantly, it's not good for birds in flight as the AF area is tiny, being just the central portion of the image and its like having a field of view of a 1600mm for following a bird.
 
Upvote 0

Kiton

Too deep in Canon to list! :o
Jun 13, 2015
181
166
Are you sure there’s no 85 f/2? I used one yesterday :)

I have that lens, my dealer says i had the first in my city. But, it is a macro, focuses like shit in video and not very fast with stills. So it doesn't really count as an 85mm general purpose lens. Macro is still a specialty item. Nice, but.........
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
all my bitching about canon priorities come true every day, no 50 1.4, no 28 or 85 f 2. but a 15,000 birding lens, YES SIR. Company management is totally lost its way
If by ‘losing their way’ you mean dominating the ILC market, selling nearly half of all cameras bought each year (more than twice as many cameras per year as their nearest competitor and more than the 2nd through 5th place brands combined), then yes they’ve ‘lots their way’. Lol.

But we all know what you really mean is they aren’t making the products you personally want, and that’s a you problem.
 
Upvote 0

Kiton

Too deep in Canon to list! :o
Jun 13, 2015
181
166
If by ‘losing their way’ you mean dominating the ILC market, selling nearly half of all cameras bought each year (more than twice as many cameras per year as their nearest competitor and more then the 2nd through 5th place brands combined), then yes they’ve ‘lots their way’. Lol.

But we all know what you really mean is they aren’t making the products you personally want, and that’s a you problem.
They are on top, no doubt. I started a switch to Sony and bailed out and went back to Canon. While I dislike management very much, I love what they do make, but I do not think I am alone in being disappointed by their choices and the delays for the "basics". They are basics for a reason after all. Canon plays to big flash items that generate buzz while leaving the core out in the cold. And refusing to allow Sigma to make RF mounts, and their explanation is contemptuous. I can love the gear and still shit on the company for short comings justly.
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
They are on top, no doubt. I started a switch to Sony and bailed out and went back to Canon. While I dislike management very much, I love what they do make, but I do not think I am alone in being disappointed by their choices and the delays for the "basics". They are basics for a reason after all. Canon plays to big flash items that generate buzz while leaving the core out in the cold. And refusing to allow Sigma to make RF mounts, and their explanation is contemptuous. I can love the gear and still shit on the company for short comings justly.
Shortcomings as you perceive them, of course. For the poster above, the want not being met is DO supertele primes. The point is that everyone wants what they want. Canon’s management needs to drive revenue and profit, and that means lenses that meet the needs of the majority of buyers.

Considering the lenses Canon prioritized for the RF lineup (and keeping in mind they’re still building it), Canon seems to believe the majority driver of their profit comprises two segments, those wanting (relatively) inexpensive lenses who will accept narrower apertures, slower focusing, and a need for software correction and those wanting high-end L-series lenses.

I think they’ve done a very good job meeting the wants of both segments. One can build a 3-zoom kit covering 15-400mm for $1450, or swap the 15-30 for the 16/2.8 and get 16-400mm coverage for $1150. There are 7 primes from 16 to 800mm, all under $1000 and most under $500.

On the high end, there are many excellent zooms and primes. If that’s not enough, there are ample EF lenses that can be simply and effectively adapted (in some cases with improved convenience thanks to the drop-in filter adapter, which is great for lenses that don’t take front filters easily, for fast primes used for outdoor portraits, etc.).

The bottom line is that what you consider ‘the basics’ are lenses that Canon has chosen to not prioritize. Given that it’s in Canon’s best interest to meet the needs of the majority, certainly as far as the consumer-level lenses you’re talking about, it seems their assessment of lenses comprising ‘the basics’ differs from yours. I am certain that Canon has a much better understanding of what lenses meet the needs of the majority of buyers than you do.

The fact that Canon isn’t making the lenses you want doesn’t mean their management is flawed, it means your personal wants aren’t aligned with the majority, or at least aren’t aligned with major profit drivers for Canon.

Canon’s market position is solid evidence that their management is effective. You can shit on it if you want, but that only makes you look petulant because you’re not getting what you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

EOS 4 Life

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 20, 2020
1,638
1,309
Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!
 
Upvote 0

EOS 4 Life

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 20, 2020
1,638
1,309
I’d much prefer Canon compete with Nikon’s PF lenses which are lightweight, good for handholding, sharp as a tack and enough light for most wildlife photography. The days of lugging around these massive lenses are behind us and Canon needs to get their act together on this front.
I love my Canon RF 800 f/11
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
I guess you do not want to stack TC's.
The 200-500 with the TC activated would be more reach.
Because my 600/4 is an EF mount, with my modified EF-RF adapter I can put an RF TC behind the adapter and an EF TC in front, so with both 2x versions I have a 2400mm f/16 lens.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
with current RF pricing
100-400 $16,999
100-500 $21,999
300-700 $29,999
Good light
There’s no 100-400 in the patent under discussion.

There’s also no 300-700, that patent example is just the 200-500 with the built-in 1.4x TC engaged.

If you had a point, you’re failing to make it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
I think the context here was f/4L zooms, so a hypothetical 100-400 f/4L constant aperture zoom.
Except no such lens has been rumored. There is a 200-400/4 + 1.4x in the patent that is the subject of this thread, along with a 200-500/4 + 1.4x, and both are exemplified as the base lens and the lens with the TC engaged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
You smoking hatter's salt?

RF100-400 is 500USD MSRP. And depending on where you live, non L RF lens can drop below MSRP.
do you know how much the Canon EF 200-400 with the 1.4x costs ? It's $11,599. we are not talking about a cheap RF with a variable aperture. Do your homework before you accuse others. My price assumptions are not far off. Their RF800/5.6 is 17999 and their RF1200/8 is 19,999.
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
28,090
8,303
do you know how much the Canon EF 200-400 with the 1.4x costs ? It's $11,599. we are not talking about a cheap RF with a variable aperture. Do your homework before you accuse others. My price assumptions are not far off. Their RF800/5.6 is 17999 and their RF1200/8 is 19,999.
Then perhaps you should have listed 200-400 instead of 100-400. The confusion is due to your error, or lack of homework if you prefer. Glass houses, throwing stones, all that.

100-400 $16,999
100-500 $21,999
300-700 $29,999
Plus, as I already mentioned the 300-700 is not a separate lens, it's the 200-500 with the TC engaged. Speaking of doing your homework, try reading the actual patent and that would be clear. There's a reason the source for this CR article lists them as examples 4 and 4', not examples 4 and 5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0