RF Lenses...What's Missing??

[Fast Glass]

Hell, maybe I need to start researching lens designing and design my own 1200mm f/5.6, to include IS and AF.

If nothing else to be able to make a CAD 3D model and look at it.

[HDNitehawk]

We ask for these lenses over and over, but Canon choose to release a 100- 400mm non L.
I don't think were the profitable group that Canon designs for.

[Kayaker72]

We ask for these lenses over and over, but Canon choose to release a 100- 400mm non L.
I don't think were the profitable group that Canon designs for.

Ha. So true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fast Glass]

Well, hard to argue with that. Lol.

But I think that is why some of these smaller lens brands have popped up too. Because they make lenses that maybe do not meet Canon's objectives, or maybe what they simply want to make on personal level as a corporation.

But even though some lesser known brands out there might not produce the highest quality glass because of a multitude of reasons. They are making glass for the enthusiasts. Lenses that are cool and unique that don't fit the bill for Canon to make but they can make. And some I suspect are probably into photography to some level as well and see there are still a lot of people who want say a budget 50mm f/0.95. And the fact they still make them someone has to be buying them. Or the 35mm f/0.95. Which is actually a fairly viable lens really.

But yeah, maybe I just need to make my own company. Make some incredible prototypes and attract some investors. Haha.

Then I can make a high quality exotic lenses that break the normal lens options you see today.

[Karsaa]

Laowa has some interesting one's now. This 35mm f0.95 manual lens for rf is tempting for nighttime videos...not that much for the stills =)

[Kayaker72]

MTF charts.

Ultimately, nothing much surprising here. The 100-400 is actually not bad, ~5% transmittance off the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II. But, so was the EF 70-300 II. I would say the RF 16 f/2.8 is "good for what it is." Which is disappointing as I am seeing several references to people saying "it will end up in everyone's bag." It would end up in mine as a lightweight alternative to the EF 16-35 f/4 for my UWA shots, but those are usually landscapes and I do not see that MTF translating well. That said, it is sharp in the center, and has a minimum focusing distance of ~5 inches. So, could still be a creative lens. Likely aimed at vloggers, which the world should be thankful does not include me.

[Dave Throgmartin]

MTF charts.

Ultimately, nothing much surprising here. The 100-400 is actually not bad, ~5% transmittance off the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II. But, so was the EF 70-300 II. I would say the RF 16 f/2.8 is "good for what it is." Which is disappointing as I am seeing several references to people saying "it will end up in everyone's bag." It would end up in mine as a lightweight alternative to the EF 16-35 f/4 for my UWA shots, but those are usually landscapes and I do not see that MTF translating well. That said, it is sharp in the center, and has a minimum focusing distance of ~5 inches. So, could still be a creative lens. Likely aimed at vloggers, which the world should be thankful does not include me.

There's the old saying that there is no free lunch. 100-400 image quality does not appear will be competitive with similar L lenses and is a stop slow, but it is $649. 400mm at a useable f-stop in good light offers opportunities for people whose budgetary constraints doesn't allow them to spring for the "L".

I think the target market is crop camera users though. I don't think many people will put this on a full frame camera.

I have the 100-400 II and it is a spectacular lens, but highlights the importance of being reasonably close. Get close enough and have very good images or stay far away and have images not worth showing anyone.

Dave