Patent Application: The Zoom You’ve Dreamt About: 70-150mm F2.0

#81
GMCPhotographics said:
Ahh, ok...has canon ever relased their diaphragm size data on their lens specs?
Click to expand...
No, but it's not really relevant. The entrance pupil is that aperture as seen from the front of the lens (object space), in other words, the entrance pupil is an apparent diameter depending on both the physical diameter of the iris and the optics of the lens. Also worth noting that there are other caveats, like the focal length used to calculate the f/number is when the lens is focused at infinity (most lenses focus breathe, with the focal length decreasing as the lens is focused closer, e.g. the EF 100/2.8L is really ~68mm at 1:1, and that's not the most extreme example).

For some info on the entrance pupil, check out the first part of this video (the exit pupil is not especially important for most photography, though for example it's involved in the reason the MP-E 65 at 5x set to f/16 has an effective aperture of f/96).

www.youtube.com

OpticsRealm Tutorial - 12 - Stops and pupils

Aperture stop: Constrains the on axis beam. Seen from object space is the entrance pupil. Seen from image space is the exit pupil. Also shows how to telecent...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

The entrance pupil is important for a couple of reasons. The diameter of the entrance pupil determines the f/number, though that's of little practical importance because the f/number is a given anyway. But the location of the entrance pupil is important for shooting panoramas, because that's the 'no-parallax' point, which you want to center over the axis of rotation for your pano head for clean stitching of images. Sometimes it's within the lens, sometimes it's within the camera, occasionally it's even outside of the system.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#82
neuroanatomist said:
The entrance pupil is important for a couple of reasons. The diameter of the entrance pupil determines the f/number, though that's of little practical importance because the f/number is a given anyway.
Click to expand...
I would say that the most practical reason for the front element size is related to its cost.
I'm assuming that it would be a substantial % of the cost of the overall lens but happy if someone has most information on this.
<<100mm seems to be made at a reasonable cost, ~100mm is a cost jump and >100mm is a big jump in the overall cost of the lens.
 
Upvote 0
#86
David - Sydney said:
I would say that the most practical reason for the front element size is related to its cost.
I'm assuming that it would be a substantial % of the cost of the overall lens but happy if someone has most information on this.
<<100mm seems to be made at a reasonable cost, ~100mm is a cost jump and >100mm is a big jump in the overall cost of the lens.
Click to expand...
Each lens with have a design document written before any developement is started. this document would also be aliving document and cover the entire life cycle for the lens. This design document will start by defining the market, target price, expecting manufacturing / R&D costs and exepected number of sales. In this document will have estimated projections of size, weight, materials, technology and the use case scenarios of the target buyers.
The front element is part of that design document as is the target aperture and other specifications. There would probably be three computer simulation block diagrams added to the document at this point so the steering group could make a desision and potentially progress one of the possible design options. Maybe even making one off prototypes of each variant if they are unsure.
For Canon, the gold isn't in the end product but in an efficient and accurate design document. If they get that part honed to near perfection then they can trust each document and assess what will work in the market and maximise their profiltability from a place of predictive knowledge.
Canon rarely makes a mistake with their lenses and so far in the RF mount there have been no clunkers. It all points to excellent due dilligence.
Canon could easily have made a lens that matches and exceeds Sigma's 150-600/f6.3, however...they have specifcially chosen not to. Making a lens because other brands have doesn't make it a wise choice.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#87
Ozarker said:
I've been gym-ing up for one of these for years. :p I've had a custom gladiator outfit built to match.

Two f/2 zooms and the two f/1.2s would complete me. The RF 135mm f/1.8L is a cherry on top.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the F2.8 Z zoom pair will cover a big range of what I shoot... + RF 1.4x.... yah... need to pump some irons... haha... :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#88
Halfmoon said:
I was thinking the F2.8 Z zoom pair will cover a big range of what I shoot... + RF 1.4x.... yah... need to pump some irons... haha... :LOL:
Click to expand...
When I bought a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS mk 1, I had to hit the gym regularly so I could handle such a heavy and cumbersome lens.
Since side grading to a mk 2, I need a far less robust tripod, heck I can even hand hold it often….and I frequent the gym far less often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#89
GMCPhotographics said:
Each lens with have a design document written before any developement is started. this document would also be aliving document and cover the entire life cycle for the lens. This design document will start by defining the market, target price, expecting manufacturing / R&D costs and exepected number of sales. In this document will have estimated projections of size, weight, materials, technology and the use case scenarios of the target buyers.
The front element is part of that design document as is the target aperture and other specifications. There would probably be three computer simulation block diagrams added to the document at this point so the steering group could make a desision and potentially progress one of the possible design options. Maybe even making one off prototypes of each variant if they are unsure.
For Canon, the gold isn't in the end product but in an efficient and accurate design document. If they get that part honed to near perfection then they can trust each document and assess what will work in the market and maximise their profiltability from a place of predictive knowledge.
Canon rarely makes a mistake with their lenses and so far in the RF mount there have been no clunkers. It all points to excellent due dilligence.
Canon could easily have made a lens that matches and exceeds Sigma's 150-600/f6.3, however...they have specifcially chosen not to. Making a lens because other brands have doesn't make it a wise choice.
Click to expand...
I completely agree... my main point was that from a manufacturing/cost base, the single most expensive item would be the front element for big whites.

Besides sales numbers, the front element size seems to correlate closely with the final price once it gets to ~100mm and bigger. I put this down to manufacturing cost (materials, yield, manual vs automated manufacturing process) IMO. I can't confirm causality but it seems a reasonable assumption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#90
David_B said:
Are there any rumors about when Canon might come out with more affordable lenses?
Click to expand...

Canon has a lot of "afforable" lenses that cover the entire range from 10mm/15mm mm to 800mm.

Highlights include the 16, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 600 & 800 primes lenses and 15-30, 24-50, 28-70, 24-105, 24-240, 100-400 zooms, and I think the 200-800 fits "affordable" considering what it is. Along with the RF-S lineup, which isn't all that impressive, but you do have the SIGMA and Tamron options now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#91
Canon Rumors Guy said:
Canon has a lot of "afforable" lenses that cover the entire range from 10mm/15mm mm to 800mm.

Highlights include the 16, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 600 & 800 primes lenses and 15-30, 24-50, 28-70, 24-105, 24-240, 100-400 zooms, and I think the 200-800 fits "affordable" considering what it is. Along with the RF-S lineup, which isn't all that impressive, but you do have the SIGMA and Tamron options now.
Click to expand...
Yeah but where are the affordable f/1.2 primes and f/2 zooms? So disappointed in Canon.

:rolleyes:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#92
GMCPhotographics said:
When I bought a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS mk 1, I had to hit the gym regularly so I could handle such a heavy and cumbersome lens.
Since side grading to a mk 2, I need a far less robust tripod, heck I can even hand hold it often….and I frequent the gym far less often.
Click to expand...
RF mount has actually cut down the weight of most lenses, using engineered plastic, and reducing the sizes of the internal parts.... so I may not need as much gym sessions as you for the EF 400mm F2.8L IS Mk I.... If we were still on DSLR, I think I'll need a longer training plan.... haha.... :LOL:
 
Upvote 0
#93
Halfmoon said:
RF mount has actually cut down the weight of most lenses, using engineered plastic, and reducing the sizes of the internal parts.... so I may not need as much gym sessions as you for the EF 400mm F2.8L IS Mk I.... If we were still on DSLR, I think I'll need a longer training plan.... haha.... :LOL:
Click to expand...
Soz....but that's an assumption and not a fact. The RF 400mm f2.8 LIS doesn't have any weight reduction compared to the EF mkIII version.
MOST RF primes lenses are actually heavier than their EF counterparts. Some of the zooms are lighter but not all.
Compare the RF 100mm LIS Macro to the EF version. The EF version is smaller and lighter.
Check out the RF 24-70mm f2.8 LIS to the EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II. The EF lens is smaller and over 100g lighter.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#94
Canon Rumors Guy said:
Canon has a lot of "afforable" lenses that cover the entire range from 10mm/15mm mm to 800mm.

Highlights include the 16, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 600 & 800 primes lenses and 15-30, 24-50, 28-70, 24-105, 24-240, 100-400 zooms, and I think the 200-800 fits "affordable" considering what it is. Along with the RF-S lineup, which isn't all that impressive, but you do have the SIGMA and Tamron options now.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is just a generational thing, but it used to be that the f/4 lenses were affordable (or felt that way) to mere mortals and the f/2.8 and wider were there for pros or people with fat wallets. Now even the f/4 lenses require fat wallets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#95
David_B said:
Maybe it is just a generational thing, but it used to be that hte f/4 lenses were affordable (or felt that way) to mere mortals and the f/2.8 and wider were there for pros or people with fat wallets. Now even the f/4 lenses require fat wallets.
Click to expand...
And the mere mortals are being duped into paying a grand for an f/11 lens.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#96
GMCPhotographics said:
Soz....but that's an assumption and not a fact. The RF 400mm f2.8 LIS doesn't have any weight reduction compared to the EF mkIII version.
MOST RF primes lenses are actually heavier than their EF counterparts. Some of the zooms are lighter but not all.
Compare the RF 100mm LIS Macro to the EF version. The EF version is smaller and lighter.
Check out the RF 24-70mm f2.8 LIS to the EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II. The EF lens is smaller and over 100g lighter.
Click to expand...
Is the weight difference significant once you include the R mount adaptor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#97
David_B said:
Maybe it is just a generational thing, but it used to be that hte f/4 lenses were affordable (or felt that way) to mere mortals and the f/2.8 and wider were there for pros or people with fat wallets. Now even the f/4 lenses require fat wallets.
Click to expand...
What affordable f/4 lenses do you recall? I remember the EF 17-40/4L and EF 70-200/4L non-IS as being affordable (<$1K). The former delivered pretty poor image quality (the RF 15-30 is better, though slower). The latter is 25 years old, so that one is a generational thing in truth. But the EF 16-35/4L IS is a decade old and the EF 70-200/4L IS is nearly two decades old and both were over $1K. Just looked, and technically the EF 24-105/4L IS was under $1K, by 1¢. But it was available as white box for less, IIRC. It was replaced by the MkII that launched at $1300. But regardless, today's more expensive f/4 lenses are substantially better performing than those old, sub-$1K f/4 lenses.

There's also this thing called inflation, and that is not a generational thing. Everything new requires a fatter wallet than the equivalent thing a generation ago. For example, the EF 70-200/4L non-IS was $650 when it launched in 1999. In today's dollars, that's $1230. The EF 70-200/4L IS launched in 2006 at $1200, which would be $1850 today. Compare those to the RF 70-200/4 IS, which beats both old lenses on IQ and launched at $1500.

JMatt said:
And the mere mortals are being duped into paying a grand for an f/11 lens.
Click to expand...
I missed the affordable versions of 600mm and 800mm lenses. Can you tell me more about those? Wait, I remember seeing a 650mm f/8 lens for only $200. You can still buy it, even. I'm sure the build and image quality are impressive. To some. ;)
opteka.com

Opteka 650-1300mm High Definition Telephoto Zoom Lens

The Opteka 650-1300mm high definition manual focus super telephoto zoom lens is perfect for the professional and amateur photographer alike. Using a 2x tele-converter with a 650-1300mm lens will effectively increase the focal length to 1300-2600mm. A lens set to f/8 will now be f/16. There is a...
opteka.com opteka.com
 
Upvote 0
#98
neuroanatomist said:
What affordable f/4 lenses do you recall? I remember the EF 17-40/4L and EF 70-200/4L non-IS as being affordable (<$1K). The former delivered pretty poor image quality (the RF 15-30 is better, though slower). The latter is 25 years old, so that one is a generational thing in truth. But the EF 16-35/4L IS is a decade old and the EF 70-200/4L IS is nearly two decades old and both were over $1K. Just looked, and technically the EF 24-105/4L IS was under $1K, by 1¢. But it was available as white box for less, IIRC. It was replaced by the MkII that launched at $1300. But regardless, today's more expensive f/4 lenses are substantially better performing than those old, sub-$1K f/4 lenses.

There's also this thing called inflation, and that is not a generational thing. Everything new requires a fatter wallet than the equivalent thing a generation ago. For example, the EF 70-200/4L non-IS was $650 when it launched in 1999. In today's dollars, that's $1230. The EF 70-200/4L IS launched in 2006 at $1200, which would be $1850 today. Compare those to the RF 70-200/4 IS, which beats both old lenses on IQ and launched at $1500.


I missed the affordable versions of 600mm and 800mm lenses. Can you tell me more about those? Wait, I remember seeing a 650mm f/8 lens for only $200. You can still buy it, even. I'm sure the build and image quality are impressive. To some. ;)
opteka.com

Opteka 650-1300mm High Definition Telephoto Zoom Lens

The Opteka 650-1300mm high definition manual focus super telephoto zoom lens is perfect for the professional and amateur photographer alike. Using a 2x tele-converter with a 650-1300mm lens will effectively increase the focal length to 1300-2600mm. A lens set to f/8 will now be f/16. There is a...
opteka.com opteka.com
Click to expand...
Why not just hold a straw against the sensor and snap a picture? Everything should be nice and focused at f/85.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard CR
Canon RF 30-600mm Super Zoom appears in Patent Application
Replies
42
Views
2K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Richard CR
Patent Application: Kit Zooms for both RF-S and RF
Replies
1
Views
241
Aldherrian
A
Canon Rumors
Canon Patent Application: Canon RF 14-20mm F2.0
Replies
1
Views
519
AJ
A
Canon Rumors
Canon Patent Application: Inner Zoom Video Lenses with Power Zoom
Replies
2
Views
291
Tirmite
T
Canon Rumors
Canon Patent Application: Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8
Replies
15
Views
997
Ian K
Ian K
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu