Canon to cease EF Lens development indefinitely?

Njal wrote in post #18998231
According to Canon Rumors on 23.1.20:
"it appears Canon is continuing the development of EF telephoto lenses"

https://www.canonrumor​s.com …ef-supertelephoto-lenses/

It's not really development, it's a patent application. It may, or may not have a real lens backing it up. Odds are that it's a tweak that some engineer came up with, passed it by legal and filed a patent app.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18989276
.
I fully agree with you, but .....

You have said before that the new RF lenses are SO MUCH better than their EF equivalents. . Do you believe this will be the case when they come out with RF supertelephotos like a 500 f4, 600 f4, and 800 f5.6? . Or do you think that there won't be quite the same massive improvements over the current EF versions that there are with the shorter, more conventional lenses?

I mean, it seems odd that you would go on so much about how much better the RF lenses are, but then say you have no interest in RF when it comes to supertelephoto lenses.

I do not mean to challenge or contest your thoughts, but I do seek to have a more full understanding about what your thoughts are concerning these differences, and to see how each thing you say is consistent with each of the other things you have said.

.

Tom,
In reading the literature from Canon at the time of the R-mount launch, there is some inherent advantage to be had in lens design which is not possible using the EF mount, as a result of the R-mount's larger 'throat' available for light to pass. So in terms of ultimate performance, R can be better, in a manner analogous to the EF mount inherent advantage over the smaller throat FD mount.
What is a bit puzzling, however, is just HOW PRICEY lenses are now, and just how much can the non-professional shooter tolerate in the consumption of their discretionary spending budget?! Both R and very recent EF lenses fall into this budget abyss.

Wilt wrote in post #18998607
Tom,
In reading the literature from Canon at the time of the R-mount launch, there is some inherent advantage to be had in lens design which is not possible using the EF mount, as a result of the R-mount's larger 'throat' available for light to pass. So in terms of ultimate performance, R can be better, in a manner analogous to the EF mount inherent advantage over the smaller throat FD mount.
What is a bit puzzling, however, is just HOW PRICEY lenses are now, and just how much can the non-professional shooter tolerate in the consumption of their discretionary spending budget?! Both R and very recent EF lenses fall into this budget abyss.

The RF mount's inner diameter is the same as EF at 54 mm.
Sony E mount is only 46.1mm diameter.
The recent Canon V3 super teles, 400 2.8 and 600 f4 are very different from previous Canon super teles, massive weight reduction, mostly air at the front of the lens with many smaller elements crammed at the rear of the lens. They are incredibly similar in design to the Sony 400 2.8 and 600 f4. From the information available to me, optically the Canon and Sony lenses are just as similar as their design, but the Sonys, particularly the 600, perform better with a 2X TC compared to the Canons.

There is a logical conclusion: the extra 7.9mm diameter of the Canon, is not providing any advantage for long lenses.

Choderboy wrote in post #18998731
The RF mount's inner diameter is the same as EF at 54 mm.
Sony E mount is only 46.1mm diameter.
The recent Canon V3 super teles, 400 2.8 and 600 f4 are very different from previous Canon super teles, massive weight reduction, mostly air at the front of the lens with many smaller elements crammed at the rear of the lens. They are incredibly similar in design to the Sony 400 2.8 and 600 f4. From the information available to me, optically the Canon and Sony lenses are just as similar as their design, but the Sonys, particularly the 600, perform better with a 2X TC compared to the Canons.

There is a logical conclusion: the extra 7.9mm diameter of the Canon, is not providing any advantage for long lenses.

Yes, same diameter as EF mount, but because of the lens electrical contact board shape, some territory is apparently opened up for use optically,
Canon says,

"The RF mount retains the same, large 54mm diameter as the current Canon EF mount, but thanks to the EOS R and EOS RP cameras’ mirrorless structure, the rear lens element can be much closer to the image plane. This combination opens up a number of possibilities. The rear element of RF lenses can be larger in diameter, improving image quality at the corners and outer edges of the frame. Larger rear elements mean front elements can be smaller, meaning less strong refracting and bending of light rays within the lens, enhancing optical performance. Most importantly, the EOS R system opens the door to the future. It unlocks more freedom and flexibility in lens designs, allowing faster lenses with increased optical performance in more compact forms than before.

Part of being able to make the rear element larger (and not stated in current information -- but which was published at the time of R system launch -- is the fact that, although the max throat diameter is the same as EF, the effective area available for optics has increased...the contact circuit board clears more path for light rays from a larger rear element optic.

Wilt wrote in post #18998910
Yes, same diameter as EF mount, but because of the lens electrical contact board shape, some territory is apparently opened up for use optically,
Canon says,

"The RF mount retains the same, large 54mm diameter as the current Canon EF mount, but thanks to the EOS R and EOS RP cameras’ mirrorless structure, the rear lens element can be much closer to the image plane. This combination opens up a number of possibilities. The rear element of RF lenses can be larger in diameter, improving image quality at the corners and outer edges of the frame. Larger rear elements mean front elements can be smaller, meaning less strong refracting and bending of light rays within the lens, enhancing optical performance. Most importantly, the EOS R system opens the door to the future. It unlocks more freedom and flexibility in lens designs, allowing faster lenses with increased optical performance in more compact forms than before.

Part of being able to make the rear element larger (and not stated in current information -- but which was published at the time of R system launch -- is the fact that, although the max throat diameter is the same as EF, the effective area available for optics has increased...the contact circuit board clears more path for light rays from a larger rear element optic.

I had not seen that diagram showing the reduced size of circuit board.
I suppose we will have to wait and see if future Canon RF superteles change design to have any elements at or close to the mount.
Currently there is some distance to the most rearward element in the EF superteles so larger distance again when adapter used for RF bodies.
The Sonys also have some distance to the first element.

Choderboy wrote in post #18999084
I had not seen that diagram showing the reduced size of circuit board.
I suppose we will have to wait and see if future Canon RF superteles change design to have any elements at or close to the mount.
Currently there is some distance to the most rearward element in the EF superteles so larger distance again when adapter used for RF bodies.
The Sonys also have some distance to the first element.

Apart from making some superlarge aperture Wide Angle lenses, it is not intuitively obvious why any lens designer would want to complicate telephoto design by the insistence of the rear optic being really close to focal plane! After all, it is the superwide FL which benefits the greatest in the large rear optic, so that light rays all emerge from less obtuse angles which contribute to chromatic abberations...the long FL lens already inherently has that advance by its very nature!

Wilt wrote in post #18999313
After all, it is the superwide FL which benefits the greatest in the large rear optic, so that light rays all emerge from less obtuse angles which contribute to chromatic abberations...the long FL lens already inherently has that advance by its very nature!

Whatever happened with Sony and their plans for a curved sensor that would solve this problem? I remember some really cheap film cameras used to use a curved film plane to work with their crappy lens.

F**k it. I'm just going back to 35mm film, with a rangefinder. Stupid mirrorless.

If the End is here, I'd love to see "The EF Lens Book IV". "III" is a fairly unique resource for the enthusiast. A book I will hold onto for many years, even as I pair down my personal library.

It has been noted how much clearance a RF lens can have and potential optical quality with elements being further back. When it comes to lens costs, bear in mind that competing brand lenses have also gotten way expensive. Comparing the competition, RF lenses aren't "THAT PRICEY". Also, I think we need to consider that all these costs are for all of us that are continuing to be the outliers: the ones who continue to want to buy dedicated cameras instead of using phone cameras.

CanonCameraFan wrote in post #19018356
If the End is here, I'd love to see "The EF Lens Book IV". "III" is a fairly unique resource for the enthusiast. A book I will hold onto for many years, even as I pair down my personal library.

I cherish my own copy as well. The so-called "glossary" is actually a detailed tutorial of lens design science as practiced by Canon.

Canon Europa had Lens Work III available as a PDF for a while.

davesrose wrote in post #19018365
It has been noted how much clearance a RF lens can have and potential optical quality with elements being further back. When it comes to lens costs, bear in mind that competing brand lenses have also gotten way expensive. Comparing the competition, RF lenses aren't "THAT PRICEY". Also, I think we need to consider that all these costs are for all of us that are continuing to be the outliers: the ones who continue to want to buy dedicated cameras instead of using phone cameras.

I paid $2400 for 24-70L II EF when it was released. I paid 2400 or 2500 for 100-400L II when it was released. Canon is killing it with the best system lenses on the planet and it is the golden age of digital photography but one thing that ain't gonna change is people will find or create a reason to whine. "but Nikon makes it....". "how come its sooooo expensive?" waaaaaa waaaaa waaaaa