|
|
|
info@grayfoximages.com |
|
Canon's evil lens twin has been busy. 600mm f11 and 800mm f11 fixed aperture lenses? And now RF800mm f5.6L and RF 1200mm f8L optics that are essentially shorter existing lens formulas with 2X extenders integrated into the back end -- but priced like small autos rather than camera gear? Who are you and what have you done with Canon? From leadership to inertia There was a time when Canon was clearly the leading camera and lens manufacturer in the industry. From the mid-90s thru the early 2000s, Canon's EF mount, use of flourite in lens elements, image stabilized supertelephotos and, eventually, high end Digital SLRs -- e.g. the original EOS 1Ds -- set the standard that others aspired to. Nikon went from a position of leadership to chasing Canon from behind. But then, Canon sat on their laurels for a decade or more, coasting on past accomplishments. Meanwhile Nikon began a furious comeback, if not in sales volume then in quality of camera bodies, sensor performance, autofocus tracking, lens selection and optical quality and more. And, unnoticed at first by either, Sony bought Minolta, pioneered affordable full frame mirrorless technology, and began a long struggle from a distant third place to become the driving innovator in sensor technology, and in the process changing the very nature of the digital camera. Now, mirrorless is rapidly taking over from the DSLR, just as DSLRs in their time displaced SLRs and film. This has put Sony in the catbird seat, having passed Nikon's market share to take over second place -- although Canon still sells more units than both combined. But, roughly 40% of Canon's sales are DSLRs, the bulk of which are low end models, camera technologies and market segments clearly on the way out as mirrorless displaces DSLRs and smartphones replace low end cameras. What will the market look like when DSLR sales atrophy, as inevitably they must? From inertia to mirrorless Canon's announcement of the RF mount seemed on the surface to be a bold step into the mirrorless future. However, strange things began to appear. At first, there were some excellent professional optics, notably the "holy trinity" of f2.8L high quality zooms, RF15-35mm, RF24-70mm and RF70-200mm, as well as the truly remarkable RF100-500mm L. Then, some bizarre lenses begain to drop. All throughout the EF era, Canon had held the line at a maximum wide open aperture of f5.6. With the introduction of RF, this discipline fell by the wayside. Notable among the biggest puzzlers were the 600mm and 800mm fixed f11 aperture lenses. There followed plenty of consumer zooms with maximum apertures of f7.1 and even f8. And speaking of puzzlers, we won't even delve into the 24MP "not-a-flagship" R3 -- was this a misstep in view of Sony's 50MP A1 and Nikon's 45MP Z9? Or, Canon's own wildly successful unicorn camera, the 45MP/20fps(electronic) R5. Or was it simply an inability to field the necessary technology? Soon thereafter, high end professional grade RF400mm f2.8 and RF 600mm f4 lenses appeared. Except that they were virtually identical to the just introduced EF version IIIs that preceded them, differing primarily in having an RF mount adapter built into the rear. Optically they were said to be indentical. Some EOS R/RF adopters felt a bit let down, especially since the EF IIIs and the optically identical RF versions were slightly worse in the center of the field, albeit better in the corners and lighter in weight, than the earlier EF400mm II and EF600mm II versions that preceded them -- verified by both MTFs and sample images. Significantly, many telephoto subjects are likely to be found near field center. The explanation for the loss of quality in the EF III and RF 600mm is readily visible from the optical element diagrams. The Canon pair feature two fluorite elements and one super UD element. The Sony version contains three fluorite lenses, one aspherical lens and two ED (extra low dispersion) elements. Guess which one performs better in optical tests. Perhaps this was the first sign that Canon had begun to compromise on absolute image quality in exchange for other metrics. Who needs lenses the price of small cars? And now comes the even more head-scratching RF800mm f5.6L and RF1200mm f8L. In and of themselves the existence of these focal lengths and apertures are not remarkable. There was an EF 800mm f5.6L and even an EF1200mm f5.6L -- granted the latter weighed 36lbs and cost ninety thousands dollars at introduction in 1993 -- an exotic specialty lens of which perhaps as few as 20 were ever produced. But, what is concerning with these new superteles is their optical designs. They turn out to be the RF400mm f2.8L and RF600mm f4L lenses with, in essence, modified 2X extenders bolted on to the back. Oh, the extender section is a bit different than the RF2X extender. There's a Super UD element in the design that isn't in the RF2X extender and the configuration of the succeeding elements is different. And, there are improvements in resolution compared to the shorter RF lenses with RF2X extenders added. But, that resolution, as shown by Canon's own MTF charts, is only modestly improved over the parent optics with the extender.
Comparing MTFs at 30lppm for the new RF800mm f5.6 vs the RF400mm with RF 2X extender, there is a small improvement across the board. The sagittal curves for both the RF600 with 2X and the RF1200 are almost identical at center field and only a tiny bit better at the edge with the RF800mm. The RF1200 meridonoidal curve improves considerably over the RF600 with 2X as one moves away from center. We must await sample images to see the effect on image quality in practice. Disturbingly, the older EF800mm performs better than the RF800. The EF600mm II with EF2X III extender has similar MTF performance across the field to the RF1200mm -- and in fact is better than both the EF600mm III with EF2X III and the RF600mm with RF2X extender attached.
All of which begs the question, why not buy the earlier, shorter RF lenses and an RF2X extender (and a RF1.4X as well); it's a far more flexible combination? Equally pointedly, why buy either the RF600 or the optically identical EF600 III when the EF600 II is better than both, at least with extenders? Leaving aside long term repair support, the only obvious reason is the reduced weight of the newer optics. Since I use the EF600 II with 2X regularly for bird photography -- on a tripod -- I've held on to my EF600mm f4L II despite its greater weight. Finally, given that the new lenses come in at 17K and 20K USD, as opposed to 12K and 13K, one also has to question who Canon thinks is gullible enough to buy these white elephants. Why would you? To add yet more extenders? The optical quality, whether of the new RF lenses or the EF III parents with 2X extenders, is already at the limits of what many consider acceptable. Adding extenders will only make image quality worse -- with the RF2X, much worse. Again, what's up with Canon? All of which brings us back to the original question: What's up with Canon? They seem to be thrashing about without a consistent plan, the latter of which was a hallmark of the entire EF era -- a 30 year period of remarkable innovation and exceptional lens quality that vaulted Canon to the top of the 35mm camera world. Whether the current direction will enable Canon to retain that leadership remains to be seen -- especially in the face of competition from Sony as well as a rapidly improving Nikon. In the business world bad decisions are rewarded with poor sales. What will be the fate of these offerings remains to be seen. Hopefully, this is a self- and market-correcting aberration. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| © 2021 Michael W. Masters Return to top |
 |
