Canon RF 100-500 4.5 - 7.1

I'd sure like to see this when people start using it. EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Review WOW!

Any thoughts on the 7.1? Does this bug anyone? I'm curios as to why 7.1 when Sigma can do 150-600 at 6.3 and Nikon can do 200-500 at 5.6? F14 with a 2X is really getting into diffraction.

Bare lens at 500mm the IQ would have to be at least as good as the 100-400 at 400mm for me to even consider it.

digital paradise wrote in post #19071312
Any thoughts on the 7.1? Does this bug anyone?

The overall market-wide shift in emphasis toward smaller, lighter, slower, and much less expensive lenses certainly bugs me.

I think that many common people (not expert photographers) are prioritizing light and affordable over heavy and expensive. . I like that Canon pretty much went against this for years, as it kept the common GWAC from being able to compete with wildlife and sports pros who were willing to invest huge dollars in specialized supertelephotos. . Canon did this by not offering any lenses longer than 400mm that were less than $5,000 or thereabouts. . This kind of kept true supertelephoto photography away from those who did not take it real seriously, and who were not able or willing to spend big money on it.

Sigma and Tamron kind of ruined it for pros and elitists by making 600mm affordable for the common man. . They did this by making these lenses with very (relatively) small apertures of f6.3. . Now we have a bunch of hacks taking close-ups of wildlife, even though the image quality is generally not up to fine art standards, and the depth of field is not a spectacularly rendered OOF bokeh, but rather has a lot of distracting contrast between the various OOF things in the frame.

Backgrounds in wildlife photos are so extremely important - not just what is in the background, but exactly how it is rendered, right down to the pixel level. . But so many people these days do not seem to put sufficient emphasis on background rendering, and I think these slow, cheap lenses are partially to blame.

Sadly, many people just care about the content - what the photo is of - more than they care about the fine points of image quality. . I don't like that the gap is closing between photographers who are extremely discriminating about fine art caliber image quality, and those who just want to get out and take some 'good' pics on the weekend.

Yes, the photos that the real pros and real experts take with $10,000 lenses have details that are rendered in a much better way than the pics that semi-serious hobbyists take with their $1,000 superzooms. . The problem is that a lot of regular people (not real art aficionados) don't really see a difference, or wouldn't care even if they did see it.

Some dude will post some cheap-lens close-ups of a deer or a bear or a bird on social media or even a site like this, and get tons of "likes" and praise from others, and I'll be looking at the image and thinking, "why do people like this so much ..... there are distracting elements in the background because of the small aperture, and the way the photographer positioned himself wasn't done with background optimization in mind." . It's like there are people who don't really know what they are doing, yet they are cheapening the market for those who do really know what they're doing, because what they do is "good enough" for other people who don't know or appreciate the difference.

I really like elitism in photography, and I think that making real long focal lengths for cheap is damaging to the elitist culture that I like to see in place when it comes to wildlife photography. . I want to make photos that most other people can't make, even thought they want to. . Now that is becoming extremely difficult for me to do, because so many other people are able to afford lenses that go to 500mm or 600mm.

.

That seems to be the trend based on what my local mom and pop said. I would have preferred a 200-500 6.3 but I may not have much choice if I want to take advantage of the RF transmission speeds and get rid of an adapter. Sigma won't have their 200-600 RF mount lenses until next year based on what I have read.

I have shoot with the R, 100-400II and 2X. The R has an option to deduce blackout while burst shooting but that only applies to RF lenses. Hope this improves with the R5, even for RF lenses.

digital paradise wrote in post #19071312
I'd sure like to see this when people start using it. EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Review WOW!

Any thoughts on the 7.1? Does this bug anyone? I'm curios as to why 7.1 when Sigma can do 150-600 at 6.3 and Nikon can do 200-500 at 5.6? F14 with a 2X is really getting into diffraction.

Bare lens at 500mm the IQ would have to be at least as good as the 100-400 at 400mm for me to even consider it.

size.

I sure wish Canon came out the similar Nikon's 500 5.6. I'd buy it today.

ed rader wrote in post #19071374
size.

So the lens will smaller than the two I mentioned.

digital paradise wrote in post #19071402
.
I sure wish Canon came out the similar Nikon's 500 5.6. I'd buy it today.
.

.
That would be excellent for birds in flight, which are typically shot against "empty" backgrounds and in bright conditions, lessening the need for a fast aperture.

Would you prefer that such a lens would come with a built-in 1.4 extender, like the 200-400mm f4 has?


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19071417
.
That would be excellent for birds in flight, which are typically shot against "empty" backgrounds and in bright conditions, lessening the need for a fast aperture.

Would you prefer that such a lens would come with a built-in 1.4 extender, like the 200-400mm f4 has?

.

No I don't have $12,000

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19071326
The overall market-wide shift in emphasis toward smaller, lighter, slower, and much less expensive lenses certainly bugs me.

I think that many common people (not expert photographers) are prioritizing light and affordable over heavy and expensive. . I like that Canon pretty much went against this for years, as it kept the common GWAC from being able to compete with wildlife and sports pros who were willing to invest huge dollars in specialized supertelephotos. . Canon did this by not offering any lenses longer than 400mm that were less than $5,000 or thereabouts. . This kind of kept true supertelephoto photography away from those who did not take it real seriously, and who were not able or willing to spend big money on it.

Sigma and Tamron kind of ruined it for pros and elitists by making 600mm affordable for the common man. . They did this by making these lenses with very (relatively) small apertures of f6.3. . Now we have a bunch of hacks taking close-ups of wildlife, even though the image quality is generally not up to fine art standards, and the depth of field is not a spectacularly rendered OOF bokeh, but rather has a lot of distracting contrast between the various OOF things in the frame.

Backgrounds in wildlife photos are so extremely important - not just what is in the background, but exactly how it is rendered, right down to the pixel level. . But so many people these days do not seem to put sufficient emphasis on background rendering, and I think these slow, cheap lenses are partially to blame.

Sadly, many people just care about the content - what the photo is of - more than they care about the fine points of image quality. . I don't like that the gap is closing between photographers who are extremely discriminating about fine art caliber image quality, and those who just want to get out and take some 'good' pics on the weekend.

Yes, the photos that the real pros and real experts take with $10,000 lenses have details that are rendered in a much better way than the pics that semi-serious hobbyists take with their $1,000 superzooms. . The problem is that a lot of regular people (not real art aficionados) don't really see a difference, or wouldn't care even if they did see it.

Some dude will post some cheap-lens close-ups of a deer or a bear or a bird on social media or even a site like this, and get tons of "likes" and praise from others, and I'll be looking at the image and thinking, "why do people like this so much ..... there are distracting elements in the background because of the small aperture, and the way the photographer positioned himself wasn't done with background optimization in mind." . It's like there are people who don't really know what they are doing, yet they are cheapening the market for those who do really know what they're doing, because what they do is "good enough" for other people who don't know or appreciate the difference.

I really like elitism in photography, and I think that making real long focal lengths for cheap is damaging to the elitist culture that I like to see in place when it comes to wildlife photography. . I want to make photos that most other people can't make, even thought they want to. . Now that is becoming extremely difficult for me to do, because so many other people are able to afford lenses that go to 500mm or 600mm.

.

WOW!!!!

about the size and weight of 100-400 II. use it at 400mm if f7.1 bugs you.

digital paradise wrote in post #19071402
I sure wish Canon came out the similar Nikon's 500 5.6. I'd buy it today.

Nikon makes it. what's stopping you? my buddy is a hardcore Canon guy and he recently bought the D850 and the 500

ed rader wrote in post #19071496
about the size and weight of 100-400 II. use it at 400mm if f7.1 bugs you.

Great advice. Thanks. I’ll do that.

ed rader wrote in post #19071497
Nikon makes it. what's stopping you? my buddy is a hardcore Canon guy and he recently bought the D850 and the 500

Because I don’t like Nikon.

ed rader wrote in post #19071496
.
about the size and weight of 100-400 II. use it at 400mm if f7.1 bugs you.
.

.
That's a bit surprising.

I would have thought that it would be somewhat smaller and lighter than the 100-400mm.


.

digital paradise wrote in post #19071514
Because I don’t like Nikon.

LMAO! I have a feeling they're not gonna be around much longer