# Canon announces the RF 800mm F5.6L IS USM and the RF 1200mm F8L IS USM



## canonnews (Feb 24, 2022)

> Canon officially announces the RF 800mm F5.6L IS USM and the RF 1200mm F8L IS USM, with some eye watering prices of 17K and 20K respectively.
> *Preorder the new Canon Lenses at Adorama*
> Canon’s Press Release;
> Go Long: Canon Introduces the RF800mm F5.6 L IS USM and RF1200mm F8 L IS USM Super-Telephoto Lenses
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 24, 2022)

Didn't see any price being announced, so it's quite odd. 1200mm lens has unusually long tube at towards mount .


----------



## dolina (Feb 24, 2022)

Looking forward to the first bird photos of the 1200mm 

I estimated that you'd need $35,000 to complete a basic birding setup from scratch.


----------



## dolina (Feb 24, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Didn't see any price being announced, so it's quite odd.


price is on DPReview and is accurate that it be $17k & $20k for 800 & 1200 respectively.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 24, 2022)

Only AUD28,000 and AUD35,100 in Australia


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 24, 2022)

dolina said:


> price is on DPReview and is accure that it be $17k & $20k for 800 & 1200 respectively.


so even rental prices will be quite high.


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 24, 2022)

Bargain basement pricing for sure....have fun guys...I'll stick the 2x on my 600 when I really need 1200mm and save the $7K for the R1.


----------



## dolina (Feb 24, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> so even rental prices will be quite high.



Unless you live beside a rookery or a national park I'd stick to renting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 24, 2022)




----------



## ncvarsity3 (Feb 24, 2022)

I'm not sure how even professionals afford these lenses. It must be a crazy tax write off. If $17k is the actual price for the RF 800mm f5.6, that's a $4k increase over the EF version.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 24, 2022)




----------



## DanCarr (Feb 24, 2022)

I had to go digging for it because Canon USA didn’t publish them, but eventually I found the lens designs on the Canon Japan website. They confirm that the 800mm is the same as the RF400mm with a few extra elements at the back. The 1200mm is just the Rf600mm with those same “doubler” elements at the back.

Now that we know the prices, this means Canon is essentially charging $5000 for a built in 2x extender. Yes; I’m sure it’ll be better than using an extender, but… $5000 better? The prices seem steep.

Whats more, the MtF charts are not anything special. If you compare the 800mm MtF chart with the MtF of the RF600mm+1.4x TC (840mm) they are very similar. They also show quite clearly that the bare 1200mm and 800mm lenses are not as sharp as the 400mm and 600mm.

Big white lenses usually get me excited, but I’m not sure how I feel about this. These were already EF lenses with an flange adapter tacked on the back.

I do think the 800mm will be popular with the wildlife folks, but man do you ever have to be sure you want 800mm ALL the time to spend an extra $5k to not add an extender! I’ll be very curious to see someone do the tests.

One of the biggest selling points might actually be the fact that the 800mm is shorter than the RF 600mm. It appears that in many bags that can only carry a 600mm, you’ll be able to carry the 800mm with a body attached. That might actually sway some decisions for those travelling to far flung locations.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 24, 2022)

I can easily see the 800 becoming the new 600 for many EF 600 owners.


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 24, 2022)

Here is everything I dug up on Canon Japan including the MTFs of these lenses and the EF Mark III/2xTCIII (no MTFs exist for the RF 2x and the RF 400/600).
1200:


600:


800:


400:


RF 2xTC:



1200:


600III/2xTCIII


800:


400III/2xTCIII:




I don't know about you but these look really similar with just a slight edge for these new optics over using a 2xTC on the Mark III lenses. Probably using an RF TC on RF400/600 would be identical to these new lenses because people claim the RF TCs are a step above the EFIIIs.

These lenses are just built in 2xTCs.

I see these being used by governments, survelience or maybe wildlife videographers that would add additional TCs to these for the super long reach. But for stills photography I'd save the $$$ and buy a 400 or 600 and use the 2xTC to get these focal lengths given the price and the MTFs.

The only difference I see is that one extra UD element just ahead of the "TC" element.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 24, 2022)

dolina said:


> Unless you live beside a rookery or a national park I'd stick to renting.


what I said was renting these lenses won't be cheap either compared to renting 600mm/400mm with TC. At some point I want to go to Himalayas for Snow leopards, Lynx, Pallas cat, Tibetan wolves, Himalayan wolves and Brown bears and given how shy those animals are(except for Pallas cat for some reason) both 800mm and 1200mm are perfect candidates to be rented for 7-8 day long trips.


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 24, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> I can easily see the 800 becoming the new 600 for many EF 600 owners.


The MTF of the 600/1.4TC is slightly better than this 800 except in the far edge of the frame (which is essentially the MTF of the 400+2xTC). (RF600/RF1.4 is likely even better). I don't see why anyone would waste money on this 800 over buying the 600/1.4TC or the 400/2.0TC UNLESS they want to add more TCs to these lenses and push out even further.

600III/1.4TCIII:



RF 800/5.6:


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 24, 2022)

Thanks for digging up the MTF charts. Exactly what we needed.

The price difference between the 1200 and the 600 + 2x TC is $6,400. For most buyers they'll already have the TC, so it's really $7k.

It really does appear that the 800 has no benefit over a 600 + 1.4x TC.

It's been a long time since an 800 beat a 600. I was hoping today would be the day.

Did a spreadsheet of the lengths/widths/weights/MFDs of the EF III and RF versions of these lenses. Confirms the obvious, but some people might find some of the data handy as they argue.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 24, 2022)




----------



## john1970 (Feb 24, 2022)

Thank you for posting the MTF charts. Frankly, I see little difference between the 400 mm f2.8 with 2x TC and the straight 800 mm f5.6 so I will be sticking with my 400 mm f2.8 + 1.4x +2x TC combo for wildlife photography.

Frankly, I am a bit disappointed that Canon will release the RF 500 mm f4 later. That is the one other lightweight super telephoto that I always like to carry. But these lenses do make some sense because they are basically minor changes of the 400 mm f2.8 and 600 f4 lens. 

Will probably have to wait another year for the 500 mm f4.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 24, 2022)

arbitrage said:


> The MTF of the 600/1.4TC is slightly better than this 800 except in the far edge of the frame (which is essentially the MTF of the 400+2xTC). (RF600/RF1.4 is likely even better). I don't see why anyone would waste money on this 800 over buying the 600/1.4TC or the 400/2.0TC *UNLESS they want to add more TCs to these lenses and push out even further*.
> 
> 600III/1.4TCIII:
> View attachment 202597
> ...


That is the point! Show me an EF super tele owner that doesn't also have TC's. Ethical wildlife photography is becoming more and more prevalent, images that show natural behavior where those animals are 100% comfortable with the un-natural photographer are the direction I keep on hearing about.

I see the EF 600 owner that regularly uses a 1.4 TC become an RF 800 owner with a TC. Despite the MTF's, which are computer generated hypotheticals, 800 is 'better' than 600. And f5.6 with current MILC AF is considerably better than it ever was with EF.


----------



## DanCarr (Feb 24, 2022)

Thanks to those that posted the MTF in the thread! I was on my phone earlier when posting my comment, so it wasn't as easy to do. Came back to rectify it now and found I have been beaten to it. Nice spreadsheet, Tiggy. I REALLY wanted to be more excited about these lenses . Here's hoping for a 500mm f/4 DO.


----------



## dolina (Feb 24, 2022)

DanCarr said:


> what I said was renting these lenses won't be cheap either compared to renting 600mm/400mm with TC. At some point I want to go to Himalayas for Snow leopards, Lynx, Pallas cat, Tibetan wolves, Himalayan wolves and Brown bears and given how shy those animals are(except for Pallas cat for some reason) both 800mm and 1200mm are perfect candidates to be rented for 7-8 day long trips.


Safe journey.


----------



## djack41 (Feb 24, 2022)

Not sure about these. I love my 600mm F4 for wildlife. The 800mm weighs about the same as the 600mm F4 with a 1.4x. Guess we can wait for the reviews and see if there is a jump in image quality. Anyway, its great to see Canon pushing the envelope.


----------



## timmy (Feb 24, 2022)

As someone who photographs wildlife for a living, I truly don’t understand the purpose of a 1200 f/8. We need light. I can’t remember the last time I shot over 5.6 for a wildlife shot. Dramatic light equals a dramatic photograph and f8 won’t be able to do this. Also, I don’t care how big your lens is, your subject has to be fairly close. The further away they are the more atmospheric conditions you are looking through, in other words, your photo turns to mush.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2022)

No longer tempted.


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 24, 2022)

I called the $20k price tag on the 1200mm. Been a tough week, it was good to get lucky on that one!


----------



## northlarch (Feb 24, 2022)

Another disappointed wildlife shooter here. Read on another thread that if you add the 2x TCs to the EFs you get the same number of elements and groupings. These are just repackaged EF lenses with massive price hikes. Not cool.


----------



## mxwphoto (Feb 24, 2022)

Bit disappointed that Canon did this, trying to make a quick buck. Not suprised as it is an easy retrofit to squeeze out $5-7k more for built in TC. Hope they go back to pushing the envelope on lens design and production like they have for most of the RF line.


----------



## dolina (Feb 24, 2022)

These are not to scale. I expect those lenses to have after sales support for at least 2 decades until the early 2040s

It appears that the these lenses share more exterior metal/rubber/polymer parts in common with their shorter counterparts. The parts nearest to the lens mount is different.

RF 800mm







RF 400mm






&

RF 1200mm






RF 600mm


----------



## dilbert (Feb 24, 2022)

timmy said:


> As someone who photographs wildlife for a living, I truly don’t understand the purpose of a 1200 f/8. We need light.



I wonder how much wildlife photographers are aware of their impact on the wildlife they're attempting to photograph.

If you want to see an extreme example of how bringing tourists in to photograph wildlife has an adverse impact (despite only "tracks left and photographs taken"), watch "The Year the Earth Changed" (Apple TV) - narrated by David Attenborough. Pay particular attention to the section where they look at the impact on cheetahs.

In the quest to get closer to take photographs of wildlife for instabook, humans are actually making the survival more difficult for the animals they want to photograph.


----------



## masterpix (Feb 24, 2022)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...


One day I will be rich enough to buy such a lens.


----------



## padam (Feb 24, 2022)

The only thing that I don't understand is why didn't they just made the 2x teleconverter part switchable?


----------



## Emyr Evans (Feb 24, 2022)

Don't get fooled folks. These are EF 400mm F/2.8 and EF 600mm f/4 with a 2X TC and RF adapter attached (the silver thing nearest the camera). The weights and MFDs are also exactly what you'd expect - even the MTF charts are identical. 
Save your money and buy a TC. You may lose a tiny bit of corrected IQ but you'll save yourself £/$ 6,000 and still have two lenses, not one.


----------



## dilbert (Feb 24, 2022)

padam said:


> The only thing that I don't understand is why didn't they just made the 2x teleconverter part switchable?



Requires reingineering the whole lens rather than just the "last mile".


----------



## padam (Feb 24, 2022)

dilbert said:


> Requires reingineering the whole lens rather than just the "last mile".


When they are sharing so many of the more expensive components, it could be more modular than this.
But then it wouldn't be a "true" 800mm or 1200mm lens, would it - and priced accordingly...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

dilbert said:


> I wonder how much wildlife photographers are aware of their impact on the wildlife they're attempting to photograph.
> 
> If you want to see an extreme example of how bringing tourists in to photograph wildlife has an adverse impact (despite only "tracks left and photographs taken"), watch "The Year the Earth Changed" (Apple TV) - narrated by David Attenborough. Pay particular attention to the section where they look at the impact on cheetahs.
> 
> In the quest to get closer to take photographs of wildlife for instabook, humans are actually making the survival more difficult for the animals they want to photograph.


Of course, some so-called wildlife photographers do cause damage and all of their activities should be condemned and we should all respect nature in the pursuit of our hobby. But, it's not photographers who are causing species extinction, it's you with your use of plastics, rearing too much beef with accompanying deforestation, burning fossil fuels via all of your energy demanding processes etc. On the other hand, it's David Attenborough with his team of nature photographers and all the enthusiastic amateurs who are bringing to the world what is happening and the love of nature that have the massive beneficial effects of highlighting and inspiring attempts to rectify these climate disasters.


----------



## lazybones (Feb 24, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Only AUD28,000 and AUD35,100 in Australia


Nice Prices for us Folks down under not!! Well unless I do win lotto (powerball) Tonight I doubt that I will be able to buy them at all.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

What hasn't been commented on so far is the minimum focus distance of the RF 800mm of only 2.6m compared with 4.2m of the RF 600mm and the 6m of the EF 800mm and RF 800mm f/11. That wouldn't be of much to me as I couldn't carry that lens on a nature hike, but that could be of real use to someone who wants to do macro photography without getting too close or photograph a small bird that suddenly appears close up.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 24, 2022)

Prices are cheeper than expected and I could see myself wanting that 1200 on occasion paired with a 1.4x or 2x TC depending on the situation. I know a number of birders with a 600 that never has the 2x removed, but even then they want more reach. f/8.0 is obviously bright enough for the subject as a 600 f/4.0 + 2x TC combo has been in use for decades.

As for the 800, again it lets some 600 users skip to the focal length they use with the ability to add extenders later. I am not as excited about Canon's 800 as I am with Nikons. The Nikon 800 is as short and fat as a 500mm f/4.0 and being 1/3rd of a stop slower and with PF elements it is going to be lighter and a better pairing with a 400 f/4.0 on a long hike.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Prices are cheeper than expected and I could see myself wanting that 1200 on occasion paired with a 1.4x or 2x TC depending on the situation. I know a number of birders with a 600 that never has the 2x removed, but even then they want more reach. f/8.0 is obviously bright enough for the subject as a 600 f/4.0 + 2x TC combo has been in use for decades.
> 
> As for the 800, again it lets some 600 users skip to the focal length they use with the ability to add extenders later. I am not as excited about Canon's 800 as I am with Nikons. The Nikon 800 is as short and fat as a 500mm f/4.0 and being 1/3rd of a stop slower and with PF elements it is going to be lighter and a better pairing with a 400 f/4.0 on a long hike.


The price over here has just been announced as £19,099: it should be £15,000 based on the US price and adding 20% import duties/vat. We could fly to the US, buy it there and have a couple of weeks holiday shooting with it, and come back with change from the £4,099 difference in price. Canon UK are b*st*rds.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Only AUD28,000 and AUD35,100 in Australia


AUD28,000 is only £14,700. The £4,400 price difference would pay for a great trip to Australia - I'll look you up in Sydney. Canon UK are Pommie b*st*rds.


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 24, 2022)

Just seen the UK Prices of these lenses !!!
That 1200mm is only £22,449...... Or in USD, that would be $30,000 please.

What? 50% more than the US? 
Justification please, or does Canon just hate UK shops?


----------



## scyrene (Feb 24, 2022)

timmy said:


> As someone who photographs wildlife for a living, I truly don’t understand the purpose of a 1200 f/8. We need light. I can’t remember the last time I shot over 5.6 for a wildlife shot. Dramatic light equals a dramatic photograph and f8 won’t be able to do this. Also, I don’t care how big your lens is, your subject has to be fairly close. The further away they are the more atmospheric conditions you are looking through, in other words, your photo turns to mush.



If you want 1200 f/5.6 you pay 5-10x more (and lose IS).

PS I shot bird mostly at f/10 for several years. No doubt you'd claim those pics were no good, but I was satisfied with many of them. Try not to generalise your experience.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The price over here has just been announced as £19,099: it should be £15,000 based on the US price and adding 20% import duties/vat. We could fly to the US, buy it there and have a couple of weeks holiday shooting with it, and come back with change from the £4,099 difference in price. Canon UK are b*st*rds.


I would rather pay the full price to a Scottish business than a English or American business. Supporting your local businesses or end up with supermarkets and Amazon. The price really isn't a big decider here, ether I pay £450 a month or £500 a month to some 0% - 12% loan regardless.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 24, 2022)

Treyarnon said:


> Just seen the UK Prices of these lenses !!!
> That 1200mm is only £22,449...... Or in USD, that would be $30,000 please.
> 
> What? 50% more than the US?
> Justification please, or does Canon just hate UK shops?


England left the EU so it costs a lot more to do business. Everything in the UK has been getting more expensive due to that daft decision so now you have to live with it and the rest of the UK has to suffer for it.


----------



## john1970 (Feb 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What hasn't been commented on so far is the minimum focus distance of the RF 800mm of only 2.6m compared with 4.2m of the RF 600mm and the 6m of the EF 800mm and RF 800mm f/11. That wouldn't be of much to me as I couldn't carry that lens on a nature hike, but that could be of real use to someone who wants to do macro photography without getting too close or photograph a small bird that suddenly appears close up.


 This is a very good point and exactly why I purchased a 400 mm f2.8 and 2x TC. I typically use the combo for bird portraits when I can get close enough, which is quite frequently if one know where to go and is patient with the wildlife.


----------



## Joules (Feb 24, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> England left the EU so it costs a lot more to do business. Everything in the UK has been getting more expensive due to that daft decision so now you have to live with it and the rest of the UK has to suffer for it.


I believe Alan had in the past demonstrated quite convincingly that Canon in particular is leaning in hard on that excuse to raise prices. If Sony and Nikon acted the same way, the rationale would be much more valid. As it stands, Canon is acting like a proper business and extracting the most money they can from their markets, likely not just compensating for increased cost, but actively increasing profits.

The recent RF price increase comes to mind as another example of this.

Just as Canon is justified in maximizing their profits, as the party on the other side of that market, we can be upset at this behavior. And vote against it verbally or with our wallets.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 24, 2022)

Not surprised at the price of these two. But have to worry about what the RF 300mm f/2.8 will be.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> England left the EU so it costs a lot more to do business. Everything in the UK has been getting more expensive due to that daft decision so now you have to live with it and the rest of the UK has to suffer for it.


As I have pointed out in other posts, Nikon and Sony don't have these huge price differentials - it's Canon Europe's price gouging policy. So, my recent purchases have been on the gray market or when there are huge discounts.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 24, 2022)

Joules said:


> And vote against it verbally or with our wallets.


Only works if you buy another brand. Buying a Canon lens from outside the UK tells them nothing as they only know about it when you try to service it or try to add it to your CPS or insurance.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Only works if you buy another brand. Buying a Canon lens from outside the UK tells them nothing as they only know about it when you try to service it or try to add it to your CPS or insurance.


It works for me saving the cash, and that's what counts. In addition, Canon does know its sales figures and do know when people don't buy. They'll get the message.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 24, 2022)

Definitely out of my price range, but so is most of the RF system for me. It is nice to see canon continuing to add to the RF system. One day, after both kids are out of college, I’ll make the switch. I still couldn’t afford these lenses though - and remain married.


----------



## eosbob (Feb 24, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> I can easily see the 800 becoming the new 600 for many EF 600 owners.


Not at those prices!


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 24, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> England left the EU so it costs a lot more to do business. Everything in the UK has been getting more expensive due to that daft decision so now you have to live with it and the rest of the UK has to suffer for it.



Well, firstly I fully agree that Brexit was a terrible decission that we (in the UK) will all have to live with - even those of us who voted against it.

But - Brexit itself cannot explain a 50 %/ £1000 markup on a lens. 
There is something more going on, espically as people will be able to purchase the lens from places such as Hong Kong, pay the shipping, pay all the relivent taxes and still save hundreds of pounds.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 24, 2022)

Treyarnon said:


> But - Brexit itself cannot explain a 50 %/ £1000 markup on a lens.
> There is something more going on, espically as people will be able to purchase the lens from places such as Hong Kong, pay the shipping, pay all the relivent taxes and still save hundreds of pounds.


You only save hundreds of pounds until you need that lens serviced or it is stolen and your insurance won't cover grey imports.


----------



## ERHP (Feb 24, 2022)

After seeing this last night, I believe I'll continue to use the RF600 f/4 w/extenders. Where I shoot, 800(840 to be exact) can be too much with the larger birds. While I have a RF 2X, it was mounted once just to verify it worked. I have not had a reason to actually use it. The 1200 is a very niche lens, but could be used for some unique shots. Would be interesting to seeing a deep pocket side by side comparison using the same camera body(probably R3 since the AF will be faster with the LP-E19 battery) showing the RF600 w/2x vs the RF1200 with subjects that require that focal length(eagle nest, etc).


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> You only save hundreds of pounds until you need that lens serviced or it is stolen and your insurance won't cover grey imports.


Canon will service without question Canon lenses that are bought abroad or imported. And you don't even have to go to Canon, there are very good service companies, some of which are official Canon Authorised. And why won't an insurance company cover the cost of a legally acquired and receipted lens that's on your policy? My insurance company doesn't have a get-out clause against grey imports.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 24, 2022)

eosbob said:


> Not at those prices!


The mainly retired with high disposable income users I see with big whites taking pictures of birds in Florida won't give a damn about the price. To them there is no difference between $12,000 and $20,000.


----------



## RunAndGun (Feb 24, 2022)

ncvarsity3 said:


> I'm not sure how even professionals afford these lenses. It must be a crazy tax write off. If $17k is the actual price for the RF 800mm f5.6, that's a $4k increase over the EF version.



If you are charging accordingly…. And for certain things, you have to have lenses with certain capabilities. And renting isn’t always a good option.

I work in ”TV” and production. You should see the prices on our lenses. My three B4 mount 2/3” HD zooms are worth (when brand new) ~$30K each. My 17-120 and 25-250 s35 Canon cine zooms about the same. Then my Canon cine primes are about $5K a piece.

I mean, just because you’re a professional doesn’t mean it doesn’t hurt buying expensive stuff, but it’s the cost of doing business. They’re tools to help you do your job that makes you money.


----------



## RunAndGun (Feb 24, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> You only save hundreds of pounds until you need that lens serviced or it is stolen *and your insurance won't cover grey imports.*


Who is your insurance through? I’ve been shooting professionally (TV & production) for just shy of 25 years and I’ve never heard any nonsense like that. Please provide some documentation.


----------



## Berowne (Feb 24, 2022)

Prices in Germany: 
RF 800: 19.949€ 
RF1200: 23.449€ 
(My trusted local Dealer in Frankfurt am Main)


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

Emyr Evans said:


> Don't get fooled folks. These are EF 400mm F/2.8 and EF 600mm f/4 with a 2X TC and RF adapter attached (the silver thing nearest the camera). The weights and MFDs are also exactly what you'd expect - even the MTF charts are identical.
> Save your money and buy a TC. You may lose a tiny bit of corrected IQ but you'll save yourself £/$ 6,000 and still have two lenses, not one.


And, more evidence is that the minimum focal distance of the 800/5.6 is 2.6m, close to the 2.5m of the RF 400/2.8 and EF 400/4 III. Similarly, the RF 1200/8 is 4.3m compared with 4.2m for the RF 600/4. TCs don't alter the mfd aside from small geometric changes.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 24, 2022)

One factor we won't know for a while is what sort of "real" price the lenses will get, once supply constraints ease. It may make sense for Canon to have a very high suggested retail price at a time when shortages allow it to sell at exaggerated prices, which could then be converted to perpetual discounts later. The "real" price for the 600mm f/4 II was closer to $11.5k new (vs $13k list) in the US prior to the Mark III being released. Perhaps the real price for the 800 f/8 will be $14k rather than $17k once the parts shortages ease.

The advantage of putting out effectively-teleconverted older lenses is probably production efficiencies. This would work great for a company whose strategy is to gain share based in part on price. But Canon hasn't acted like a company trying to drive prices down (costs, yes). 

This leads us to a showdown of sorts. Assuming that the MTF charts are somewhat accurate, knowledgeable supertele buyers aren't going to pay an extra $5-$7k for a less flexible lens of same or lower image quality. Most people dropping ~$15k on a lens are knowledgeable. Maybe nuts, but knowledgeable, usually. Which means one of the following are true:
1 - These will sit on the price lists to flesh out the comprehensiveness of the RF line, but won't be actually bought/used much
2 - Canon will lower the prices significantly
3 - There is some sort of special image quality magic that makes these better than teleconverted lenses, and we're all a bunch of geeks jumping to early conclusions

I'm betting on #2 for now. I think Canon sees a small market where people don't like using adapters and/or teleconverters, and they're ripe for exploitation, and then they'll lower prices eventually to make the comparison versus the base lenses less dramatic.


----------



## Cochese (Feb 24, 2022)

Considering the cost of the EF 1200mm lens, this is a bargain!


----------



## Berowne (Feb 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> And, more evidence is that the minimum focal distance of the 800/5.6 is 2.6m, close to the 2.5m of the RF 400/2.8 and EF 400/4 III. Similarly, the RF 1200/8 is 4.3m compared with 4.2m for the RF 600/4. TCs don't alter the mfd aside from small geometric changes.


This is a modular production. The front Element is reused with different rear elements. Other companies do the same. So what?


----------



## unfocused (Feb 24, 2022)

ncvarsity3 said:


> I'm not sure how even professionals afford these lenses...


I'd wager that very few of these lenses are bought by professionals. As @privatebydesign referenced earlier, most lenses like this are purchased by enthusiasts who have high disposable income and spend it on their hobby. 

I also suspect that a large percentage goes to rental houses who need to have the lenses in stock. If you are in business, you can deduct the full cost of rentals, whereas a purchase has to be depreciated. If you purchase, you are also tying up your capital in a non-liquid asset, which is usually a bad business strategy. For enthusiasts, unless you live someplace where you can use theses lenses on a regular basis, it makes more sense to rent than own.


----------



## entoman (Feb 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> As I have pointed out in other posts, Nikon and Sony don't have these huge price differentials - it's Canon Europe's price gouging policy. So, my recent purchases have been on the gray market or when there are huge discounts.


Me too, as they say. I just wouldn't consider paying UK prices. Almost all of my gear for the last 7-8 years has come direct from a Hong Kong exporter, who provides a full 3 year parts and labour UK warranty, and superb all round service. If my gear is stolen, it will be covered by insurance, as long as I retain the receipts, contrary to the nonsense spouted by Photo Bunny.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 24, 2022)

Across the web it's being widely shared that BWU (Big White Users) are happier to keep using the 2.8 and f/4 versions with TC's instead. Canon might just see an increase in extender sales from this, not much else.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

Berowne said:


> This is a modular production. The front Element is reused with different rear elements. Other companies do the same. So what?


It's far more than that - they have used not just the front element but all of the internal elements with just an extender inserted: see this earlier post and subsequent:


arbitrage said:


> Here is everything I dug up on Canon Japan including the MTFs of these lenses and the EF Mark III/2xTCIII (no MTFs exist for the RF 2x and the RF 400/600).
> 1200:
> View attachment 202588
> 
> ...


----------



## entoman (Feb 24, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I shot bird mostly at f/10 for several years. No doubt you'd claim those pics were no good, but I was satisfied with many of them.


I'm currently using the cheapo RF 800mm F11 for a lot of my bird photography, and for most situations I don't find the fixed F11 aperture limiting. Even at F11 depth of field is very shallow and nearly always enough to isolate the subject nicely from the background.

The only practical limitation is the focusing speed, which is slower than when using my EF100-400mm with 1.4x extender, so I use usually the zoom when shooting BIF, and the 800mm F11 when shooting perching birds and waders.

Ultimately, I'll probably end up with the RF 100-500mm and 1.4x extender, but I'm also using a 5DMkiv, so until I get around to replacing that with another RF body, I'll be sticking with the EF zoom.

I don't see much point personally in going beyond 800mm focal length, because atmospheric haze and/or heat haze often have a major negative impact on subject sharpness if the latter is more than 100m away - this is particularly noticeable in Africa, and in coastal locations at home in the UK, even quite early in the mornings, when most of my bird photography is done.


----------



## northlarch (Feb 24, 2022)

I don’t see Canon reducing the prices on these, personally, even if they don’t sell. These are pride lenses for marketing and didn’t cost them much to make. Won’t sell a ton but they set a bar and they’d be foolish to then move that bar, IMO. Personally, this choice leaves a bad taste in my mouth as a new Canon customer for the RF line. It’s a bit disrespectful to the customers to inflate the prices like this so brazenly for some welded on TCs. Corporations that get comfortable start acting like their customers are stupid, and we’re seeing some evidence of that here.


----------



## dilbert (Feb 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> But, it's not photographers who are causing species extinction, it's you with your use of plastics, rearing too much beef with accompanying deforestation, burning fossil fuels via all of your energy demanding processes etc. On the other hand, it's David Attenborough with his team of nature photographers and all the enthusiastic amateurs who are bringing to the world what is happening and the love of nature that have the massive beneficial effects of highlighting and inspiring attempts to rectify these climate disasters.



Whataboutism at its finest.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 24, 2022)

dolina said:


> price is on DPReview and is accurate that it be $17k & $20k for 800 & 1200 respectively.


Cheap!!!!
In Europe: Euro 19949 and 23449 ! No comment.
About 25% more.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 24, 2022)

Treyarnon said:


> Well, firstly I fully agree that Brexit was a terrible decission that we (in the UK) will all have to live with - even those of us who voted against it.
> 
> But - Brexit itself cannot explain a 50 %/ £1000 markup on a lens.
> There is something more going on, espically as people will be able to purchase the lens from places such as Hong Kong, pay the shipping, pay all the relivent taxes and still save hundreds of pounds.


We didn' t have Frenchxit, but nevertheless are charged Euro 19949 and 23449. How to justify this b.llsh.t pricing?


----------



## dolina (Feb 24, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Cheap!!!!
> In Europe: Euro 19949 and 23449 ! No comment.
> About 25% more.



Email Mr. Tony Leung or Wilson Cheung at [email protected] New Sankyo Camera Co, Ltd. Shop G-19 Golden Mile Holiday Inn 50 Nathan Rd. Kowloon, Hong Kong.

You may get the lens at US MSRP or lower. The round trip ticket to HK may be cheaper than buying it in the EU.


----------



## Berowne (Feb 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's far more than that - they have used not just the front element but all of the internal elements with just an extender inserted: see this earlier post and subsequent:


Of course, this is rational. Leica did it in 1996 with the modular Apo-Telyt-System.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 24, 2022)

canonnews said:


> ... with some eye watering prices of 17K and 20K respectively ...


Call it "eye watering"? Breath taking at least! 
I feel my heart stopping for a moment. 

Canon, please stay realistic to your customers.


----------



## ISO64 (Feb 24, 2022)

This post may not be directly related to RF 800/1200, but...

Can anyone who owns a big EF white (500 or 600) and any close focus adaptor check what are the minimum and maximum focusing distances when 1.4X and 2X are used in standard config (lens>TC>adaptor>camera) versus "non advertised" (lens>adaptor>TC>camera)? I found that using "non advertised" config keeps all focusing points active, as oposed to just central 1+4 on my 7D2.
Admin: feel free to move this to a new discussion 
ISO64


----------



## Nemorino (Feb 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> And, more evidence is that the minimum focal distance of the 800/5.6 is 2.6m, close to the 2.5m of the RF 400/2.8 and EF 400/4 III. Similarly, the RF 1200/8 is 4.3m compared with 4.2m for the RF 600/4. TCs don't alter the mfd aside from small geometric changes.


And the max aperture: 400/600 up to f/32.
800/1200 up to f/64.


----------



## Juangrande (Feb 24, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Thanks for digging up the MTF charts. Exactly what we needed.
> 
> The price difference between the 1200 and the 600 + 2x TC is $6,400. For most buyers they'll already have the TC, so it's really $7k.
> 
> ...


Yes you can add teleconverters to the RF 400 and 600 lenses and have that versatility and probably more advantageous to most. The advantage for the RF 800/1200 would be the ability to further add teleconverters to these new lenses and get up to 1600mm and 2400mm reach.


----------



## mxwphoto (Feb 24, 2022)

Berowne said:


> Of course, this is rational. Leica did it in 1996 with the modular Apo-Telyt-System.
> 
> View attachment 202599


At face value, that looked awesome until I realized


Berowne said:


> Of course, this is rational. Leica did it in 1996 with the modular Apo-Telyt-System.
> 
> View attachment 202599


I saw it and thought awesome until I realized it is essentially Leica selling a 280mm and 400mm 2.8 lens but forcing you to buy the entire back half of the elements groups separately rather than just adding teleconverter for each focal length so they can charge you more money for duplicate glass.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

Berowne said:


> Of course, this is rational. Leica did it in 1996 with the modular Apo-Telyt-System.
> 
> View attachment 202599


It is rational for Canon to minimise costs by just cannibalising old designs, but does it give the best IQ for the customer and is it any advantage to buying 400 or 600 with extenders for much less money and more flexibility? I think this is what the discussion is about.


----------



## Berowne (Feb 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It is rational for Canon to minimise costs by just cannibalising old designs, but does it give the best IQ for the customer and is it any advantage to buying 400 or 600 with extenders for much less money and more flexibility? I think this is what the discussion is about.


Perhaps it cannot be made better for any reasonable price? 
Actually Uncle Rog wrote a nice Blog-Post just about this question: Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens


----------



## Pixel (Feb 24, 2022)

Get a 2x and save your money


----------



## xps (Feb 24, 2022)

Berowne said:


> Prices in Germany:
> RF 800: 19.949€
> RF1200: 23.449€
> (My trusted local Dealer in Frankfurt am Main)


Incredible. Sorry, but this is to much for 200mm more reach. My RF600+extender will do an great job too and I´ll save thousands of Euros. And better spend some of this to NPO/NGOs that do help the Ucrainian people.

P.s.: To be honest, my older EF 600mm Version II is still a little bit sharper than my RF version. Wheight reduction is welcome, but in my opinion it will take another version to be optimized to get beyond the sharpness of the 600 II.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

Berowne said:


> Perhaps it cannot be made better for any reasonable price?
> Actually Uncle Rog wrote a nice Blog-Post just about this question: Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens


I'm old enough to be his uncle. I love his writing style as well as its content. He really does understand lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It is rational for Canon to minimise costs by just cannibalising old designs, but does it give the best IQ for the customer and is it any advantage to buying 400 or 600 with extenders for much less money and more flexibility? I think this is what the discussion is about.


I think this is the only rationale that makes sense, given the designs and the MTF comparisons: 


Juangrande said:


> The advantage for the RF 800/1200 would be the ability to further add teleconverters to these new lenses and get up to 1600mm and 2400mm reach.


Even then, I don’t see how the IQ with an extender on the 800/1200 will be better than stacking extenders on the 400/600 (which isn’t all that great, as I found). But keeping infinity focus is an advantage.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 24, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'm currently using the cheapo RF 800mm F11 for a lot of my bird photography, and for most situations I don't find the fixed F11 aperture limiting. Even at F11 depth of field is very shallow and nearly always enough to isolate the subject nicely from the background.
> 
> The only practical limitation is the focusing speed, which is slower than when using my EF100-400mm with 1.4x extender, so I use usually the zoom when shooting BIF, and the 800mm F11 when shooting perching birds and waders.
> 
> ...


I'm hoping to get the 800 f/11 myself. The 100-500 sounds great but the price is higher than I'd be prepared to pay.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 24, 2022)

If this 1200 mm is just a 600 mm plus 2X extender, its price (Euro 23449) is a steal.
Literally spoken!


----------



## entoman (Feb 24, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I'm hoping to get the 800 f/11 myself. The 100-500 sounds great but the price is higher than I'd be prepared to pay.


You'll be amazed at how good the stabilisation is when using the 800mm F11 on a R6, R5 or R3


----------



## Jethro (Feb 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... I don’t see how the IQ with an extender on the 800/1200 will be better than stacking extenders on the 400/600 (which isn’t all that great, as I found).


I guess that will be the litmus test, once there are examples out there for in-depth reviews of the resulting IQ. Otherwise you'd be paying a huge premium for integration and (potentially marginal) additional IQ in unstacked usage. Weight reduction is obviously another advantage.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I'm hoping to get the 800 f/11 myself. The 100-500 sounds great but the price is higher than I'd be prepared to pay.


Having the 800/11 and the RF 100-400mm makes a very good kit for nature photography. I have both and love the 100-400 because it is so sharp and light. I also have the RF 100-500mm, and it's an exceptional lens if you can afford it.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 24, 2022)

entoman said:


> You'll be amazed at how good the stabilisation is when using the 800mm F11 on a R6, R5 or R3



That triggered a thought. I own the 800 f/11, and it's a peach. Stabilization is fantastic. In bright light, I love it. 

So why is it that the new "RF" supertelephoto lenses cannot do the integrated IS dance with the IBIS if the 800mm f/11 can? Canon specifically noted in its press release regarding the 800 and 1200 that there is less benefit in the supertelephoto range. But, huh? The 800 f/11 seems to thrive with it. 

The only reason I can think of is that the RF big white supertelephoto are really EF lenses with RF adapters inside (said with the gesture of clutching my pearls). This would cut contact connections between accelerometers at the ends of the lens and the RF mount. In other words, if they'd just cheaped out a little less, we'd have hybrid IS as good as the 800 f/11 in the new big whites?


----------



## Dragon (Feb 24, 2022)

arbitrage said:


> Here is everything I dug up on Canon Japan including the MTFs of these lenses and the EF Mark III/2xTCIII (no MTFs exist for the RF 2x and the RF 400/600).
> 1200:
> View attachment 202588
> 
> ...


Bravo on the research work. The new "magnifier" optics are theoretically slightly better than the external TC, but not enough to write home about. It probably helps with CA enough that adding a further TC doesn't make a complete mess of the image. I think the underlying question will be how carefully parts are selected to get as close as possible to the theoretical numbers. Statistically, that could make a significant difference, but the starting point doesn't augur for very stunning performance with a 2x TC or even a 1.4 for that matter. The EF 800 is better and much better in the center



EF800mm f/5.6 L



The RF 800 f/11 isn't as good in the corners, but frankly, not that much worse in the center.



So the only real selling point is light weight (and a much lighter wallet).

Bottom line, I will hang on to my EF 800 (and my RF 800 f/11).

EDIT.
For apples to apples, here is the EF 800 MTF chart from the Canon Japan site in presumably the "new" more rigorous MTF chart format that Canon has been using for the last few years and still a little better in the center than the new one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> That triggered a thought. I own the 800 f/11, and it's a peach. Stabilization is fantastic. In bright light, I love it.
> 
> So why is it that the new "RF" supertelephoto lenses cannot do the integrated IS dance with the IBIS if the 800mm f/11 can? Canon specifically noted in its press release regarding the 800 and 1200 that there is less benefit in the supertelephoto range. But, huh? The 800 f/11 seems to thrive with it.
> 
> The only reason I can think of is that the RF big white supertelephoto are really EF lenses with RF adapters inside (said with the gesture of clutching my pearls). This would cut contact connections between accelerometers at the ends of the lens and the RF mount. In other words, if they'd just cheaped out a little less, we'd have hybrid IS as good as the 800 f/11 in the new big whites?


Physics. I think you’re inflating the importance of IBIS with the 800/11. IBIS is simply not very effective at long focal lengths, because the sensor cannot be moved far or fast enough to compensate for the angular motion. Ten times the sensor movement would be required to compensate for the same shake at 800mm as at 80mm.

Here is some info from Canon:









8-stops Image Stabilization - Canon Europe


With a market-leading 8-stops of Image Stabilization, Canon's EOS R5 and EOS R6 rewrite the photographic rulebook. Find out how it's possible, and what it means for you.




www.canon-europe.com


----------



## entoman (Feb 24, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> That triggered a thought. I own the 800 f/11, and it's a peach. Stabilization is fantastic. In bright light, I love it.
> 
> So why is it that the new "RF" supertelephoto lenses cannot do the integrated IS dance with the IBIS if the 800mm f/11 can? Canon specifically noted in its press release regarding the 800 and 1200 that there is less benefit in the supertelephoto range. But, huh? The 800 f/11 seems to thrive with it.
> 
> The only reason I can think of is that the RF big white supertelephoto are really EF lenses with RF adapters inside (said with the gesture of clutching my pearls). This would cut contact connections between accelerometers at the ends of the lens and the RF mount. In other words, if they'd just cheaped out a little less, we'd have hybrid IS as good as the 800 f/11 in the new big whites?


Most seem to agree that with long focal lengths, the OIS does the bulk of the stabilisation.
So maybe it's just that the super-light 800mm F11 just has far more efficient OIS than is possible with the big heavy elements in big whites that are based on EF designs. Just guessin'

Edit - I see neuro pipped me to the post on this  and went into the detail.


----------



## padam (Feb 24, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> So why is it that the new "RF" supertelephoto lenses cannot do the integrated IS dance with the IBIS if the 800mm f/11 can? Canon specifically noted in its press release regarding the 800 and 1200 that there is less benefit in the supertelephoto range. But, huh? The 800 f/11 seems to thrive with it.


It does not the 600/11 800/11 also use lens IS only, IBIS is never enabled. Still works well as-is but probably not as effective as with the 100-500/4.5-7.1 that does support combined IS.

The new Nikon 400/2.8 Z lens supports Syncro VR but only with the Z9, not with their earlier mirrorless cameras.
Maybe Canon's later cameras will have a different IBIS that may work better with certain supertelephoto lenses and until then it is lens IS only, we don't know.


----------



## entoman (Feb 24, 2022)

padam said:


> It does not the 600/11 800/11 also use lens IS only, IBIS is never enabled. Still works well as-is but probably not as effective as with the 100-500/4.5-7.1 that does support combined IS.
> 
> The new Nikon 400/2.8 Z lens supports Syncro VR but only with the Z9, not with their earlier mirrorless cameras.
> Maybe Canon's later cameras will have a different IBIS that may work better with certain supertelephoto lenses and until then it is lens IS only, we don't know.


Yes, come to think of it, I did read somewhere that IBIS is auto-disabled when using the RF 600mm F11 and RF 800mm F11.


----------



## night-timer (Feb 24, 2022)

Looks like these lenses are already getting very mixed reviews based on their price and the fact that they may not be new designs, just older/shorter lenses with a built-in 2x TC. 

Paparazzi photographers chasing a big 'scoop' will use the 800... it's being done already with the EF 800/5.6... but generally paps preferred the 500/4 EF over the 600/4 EF, because it's much lighter than the 600. 

I did my long lens pap shots with a 300/2.8 plus 2x TC and the 1.3x crop factor of the 1D MkIV body - effective 780mm.

A lot of press/pro shooters get pushed in a pap direction because there's a demand for those types of images, like it or not.


----------



## dolina (Feb 24, 2022)

Pixel said:


> Get a 2x and save your money
> 
> View attachment 202600


Now do the 800mm vs 400mm too!


----------



## dcm (Feb 25, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> The mainly retired with high disposable income users I see with big whites taking pictures off birds in Florida won't give a damn about the price. To them there is non difference between $12,000 and $20,000.



Reminds me of all the soccer moms at kids athletic events a few years back with a 5D series and EF 100-400L to take photos for their facebook/instagram feeds, often driving large SUVs like Chevrolet Suburbans. Yes, I live in a more affluent town with young people that have high disposable incomes. I don’t know if this still happens - I don’t go out as much since COVID.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Feb 25, 2022)

dilbert said:


> I wonder how much wildlife photographers are aware of their impact on the wildlife they're attempting to photograph.
> 
> If you want to see an extreme example of how bringing tourists in to photograph wildlife has an adverse impact (despite only "tracks left and photographs taken"), watch "The Year the Earth Changed" (Apple TV) - narrated by David Attenborough. Pay particular attention to the section where they look at the impact on cheetahs.
> 
> In the quest to get closer to take photographs of wildlife for instabook, humans are actually making the survival more difficult for the animals they want to photograph.


I saw the program. Sad.


----------



## djack41 (Feb 25, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> That is the point! Show me an EF super tele owner that doesn't also have TC's. Ethical wildlife photography is becoming more and more prevalent, images that show natural behavior where those animals are 100% comfortable with the un-natural photographer are the direction I keep on hearing about.
> 
> I see the EF 600 owner that regularly uses a 1.4 TC become an RF 800 owner with a TC. Despite the MTF's, which are computer generated hypotheticals, 800 is 'better' than 600. And f5.6 with current MILC AF is considerably better than it ever was with EF.


It would be fun to have the 800mm for my bird photography but the reality is there is no substitute for getting close to your subject. Magnification/distance delivers diminishing return.


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 25, 2022)

One thing I found quite amazing - beyond the stratospheric pricing - is that both lenses focus very close. Especially when one considers their telephoto length. The 1200mm focuses to 14.1 ft and the 800mm to like 8.3 ft. I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (Mk I, first gen.) and at 200mm it only focuses as close as ~6 ft. So that is very impressive to me. I don't think the 400mm f/2.8L or the 600mm f/4.0L with 1.4x TC's would focus as close. But that's a lot of extra dough for close-focusing and the extra reach (in one piece of equipment). One could buy the 600mm f/4.0L IS, an R3 (or R5 for savings), and the 1.4x or 2x TC for less than the 1200mm. And have more flexibility. Still, the $20k price tag is far less than the $100k of the old Canon 1200mm f/5.6L. Not too mention the 7.3lb weight compared to the 29 lbs. of the older one.


----------



## Wcsmith02 (Feb 25, 2022)

Are they really selling us a 5 to 7 thousand dollar teleconverter? Is there really no significant difference between the 400 and 600 with 2xTCs other than the massive price hike, and if so, how do they sleep at night? What am I missing?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 25, 2022)

FramerMCB said:


> One thing I found quite amazing - beyond the stratospheric pricing - is that both lenses focus very close. Especially when one considers their telephoto length. The 1200mm focuses to 14.1 ft and the 800mm to like 8.3 ft. I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (Mk I, first gen.) and at 200mm it only focuses as close as ~6 ft. So that is very impressive to me. I don't think the 400mm f/2.8L or the 600mm f/4.0L with 1.4x TC's would focus as close. But that's a lot of extra dough for close-focusing and the extra reach (in one piece of equipment). One could buy the 600mm f/4.0L IS, an R3 (or R5 for savings), and the 1.4x or 2x TC for less than the 1200mm. And have more flexibility. Still, the $20k price tag is far less than the $100k of the old Canon 1200mm f/5.6L. Not too mention the 7.3lb weight compared to the 29 lbs. of the older one.


The 400mm and 600mm with 2xTCs do focus as close.


AlanF said:


> And, more evidence is that the minimum focal distance of the 800/5.6 is 2.6m, close to the 2.5m of the RF 400/2.8 and EF 400/4 III. Similarly, the RF 1200/8 is 4.3m compared with 4.2m for the RF 600/4. TCs don't alter the mfd aside from small geometric changes.


----------



## dcm (Feb 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It is rational for Canon to minimise costs by just cannibalising old designs, but does it give the best IQ for the customer and is it any advantage to buying 400 or 600 with extenders for much less money and more flexibility? I think this is what the discussion is about.


These products seem more deliberate that cannibalization to me. It was likely a plan from the beginning for the EF family, but RF/COVID interrupted the plan so we are only seeing the fruition now. I expect there is some commonality in the RF600/800 f/11 lenses too. You may also find this in the commonality between the R5 and R6. I expect we will see more examples in the future. 

Companies can no longer afford to do one off designs for every product. The focus elsewhere for years has been a systems design with common, reusable parts, processes, assembly lines, and repair to simplify supply chains and manufacturing to create economies of scale that reduce costs and improve profitability. We often think in design language now where a family of products is designed together and rolled out over time where we leverage as much as possible across the entire family. The only differences are the things that are necessary to differentiate the products rather than building everything from the ground up.


----------



## Chig (Feb 25, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Only AUD28,000 and AUD35,100 in Australia


You're lucky , in New Zealand they're NZD$35,498.99 and $40,999


----------



## maulanawale (Feb 25, 2022)

Treyarnon said:


> Just seen the UK Prices of these lenses !!!
> That 1200mm is only £22,449...... Or in USD, that would be $30,000 please.
> 
> What? 50% more than the US?
> Justification please, or does Canon just hate UK shops?


On top of that, add the fact that at 1200mm and F8 in the UK, you can probably use the lens 20 days a year considering the weather here. 
As I write this, I haven't had a session with good light in probably 3 weeks. 

That difference is nuts, you can definitely fly to the US, buy the lens, take a trip around a few of the many amazing National parks there, and even have some cash left to buy a drink at the airport (probably not Starbucks though)


----------



## maulanawale (Feb 25, 2022)

RunAndGun said:


> Who is your insurance through? I’ve been shooting professionally (TV & production) for just shy of 25 years and I’ve never heard any nonsense like that. Please provide some documentation.


Another point I'm used to hearing reg grey imports is that resell value is lower than "legal" lenses. That is also not true, specially if you trade in with shops, not once have I been asked to show proof of purchase let alone "nationality" of the lens.
When I traded in my Sony 100-400, I actually made money.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 25, 2022)

maulanawale said:


> On top of that, add the fact that at 1200mm and F8 in the UK, you can probably use the lens 20 days a year considering the weather here.
> As I write this, I haven't had a session with good light in probably 3 weeks.
> 
> That difference is nuts, you can definitely fly to the US, buy the lens, take a trip around a few of the many amazing National parks there, and even have some cash left to buy a drink at the airport (probably not Starbucks though)


By the time you pay sales tax in NYC (probably the only place you will find one of these in a store) and then pay your VAT when you get home, you won't have enough left over after your airfare to hit too many national parks . The big issue is that the base price is a bit excessive considering that the new optics-to-the-rear design results in much smaller fluorite elements than those in the EF800. These lenses will be VERY profitable if they can sell them.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 25, 2022)

Dragon said:


> By the time you pay sales tax in NYC (probably the only place you will find one of these in a store) and then pay your VAT when you get home, you won't have enough left over after your airfare to hit too many national parks . The big issue is that the base price is a bit excessive considering that the new optics-to-the-rear design results in much smaller fluorite elements than those in the EF800. These lenses will be VERY profitable if they can sell them.





AlanF said:


> The price over here has just been announced as £19,099: it should be £15,000 based on the US price and adding 20% import duties/vat. We could fly to the US, buy it there and have a couple of weeks holiday shooting with it, and come back with change from the £4,099 difference in price. Canon UK are b*st*rds.


Even if you pay the full 8.875% NYC sales tax and full UK import duty/VAT on the RF 800, it will be £3000 cheaper. You can find UK-USA return flights for £300-400. That still leaves more than £3,600/$4,900 to spend on holidays in the US. I would order one in advance in NH if I could where they have 0 tax.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Feb 25, 2022)

The new 1200mm is £22,500 in the UK inc VAT - That's over $30,000!!!!!









Canon RF 1200mm f8 L IS USM Lens | Wex Photo Video






www.wexphotovideo.com





I'll stick with my EF600mm III, thank you Canon.

You are deceptively trying to get me to buy a £8,000 teleconverter (which I already own, but paid 5% of this for it).


----------



## padam (Feb 25, 2022)

dcm said:


> These products seem more deliberate that cannibalization to me. It was likely a plan from the beginning for the EF family, but RF/COVID interrupted the plan so we are only seeing the fruition now. I expect there is some commonality in the RF600/800 f/11 lenses too. You may also find this in the commonality between the R5 and R6. I expect we will see more examples in the future.
> 
> Companies can no longer afford to do one off designs for every product. The focus elsewhere for years has been a systems design with common, reusable parts, processes, assembly lines, and repair to simplify supply chains and manufacturing to create economies of scale that reduce costs and improve profitability. We often think in design language now where a family of products is designed together and rolled out over time where we leverage as much as possible across the entire family. The only differences are the things that are necessary to differentiate the products rather than building everything from the ground up.


This commonality has been the same since Sony started with the A7 and A7R, maybe a lot earlier than that, but what year was that, 2013? xD


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 25, 2022)

Treyarnon said:


> Just seen the UK Prices of these lenses !!!
> That 1200mm is only £22,449...... Or in USD, that would be $30,000 please.
> 
> What? 50% more than the US?
> Justification please, or does Canon just hate UK shops?


The UK lenses are made with extra special care, dedication and love by the very best specialists, so they are thousands and thousands of Pounds better than their inferior US equivalents. You should be grateful instead of complaining!
We happy Europeans, Canon loves us!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 25, 2022)

Wcsmith02 said:


> Are they really selling us a 5 to 7 thousand dollar teleconverter? Is there really no significant difference between the 400 and 600 with 2xTCs other than the massive price hike, and if so, how do they sleep at night? What am I missing?


Well while it may appear on paper these are just built in TC's it is worth a note that the glass will be paired and aligned up and you can add your own additional TC's to this. If 800mm is your end goal I would go for a 600 and 1.4X. If 800 or even 1200 is just where you want to start then these lenses are you only options from Canon as you can't shove two 2x TC's onto the 600mm and I am sure even if you could that there would be more IQ loss. To my mind these are binned 400 and 600mm lines that have been selected because they can become a 800 and 1200 with acceptable additional TC usage. I am also very much not opposed to Canon re using the same base design to make multiple lenses, if I were them I would also love to be able to use one or two base designs to achieve multiple end goals. As photographers we have to make our buying decisions based on the focal length we want and what IQ we consider acceptable to reach it and with what compromises we are willing to make. I personally will be going for the Nikon 800mm f/6.3 PF lens for the Z mount but I know that PF means there are a few compromises in some situations to reach that and I don't yet know how compromised the IQ will be with the 1.4x and 2x TC.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 25, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> [..] I am also very much not opposed to Canon re using the same base design to make multiple lenses, if I were them I would also love to be able to use one or two base designs to achieve multiple end goals.[..]


My issue with these lenses is big price difference between base model + extender and these models. If that difference is purely about manufacturing, I guess Canon said something like "The new tooling costs us $1M USD, let's divide that over the 200 units we're going to produce."

But the weight, focal length and price point are all things that put these lenses in the "not for me" category, so what I think is very irrelevant


----------



## scyrene (Feb 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Having the 800/11 and the RF 100-400mm makes a very good kit for nature photography. I have both and love the 100-400 because it is so sharp and light. I also have the RF 100-500mm, and it's an exceptional lens if you can afford it.


Those zooms have a great reputation, but alas the cost of getting into the R system means they're out of my reach. I'm much more familiar with using primes though, so I don't think I'll feel too restricted.


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 25, 2022)

Someone pointed to a source of the RF lenses with 2xTC MTFs. So here is an update from my earlier post with those MTFs instead of the MkIII MTFs....

I think these do show some improvements with the performance. Although one would hope for more when spending so much. The old 800L has a better MTF than this new 800.










800L


----------



## Joules (Feb 25, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Those zooms have a great reputation, but alas the cost of getting into the R system means they're out of my reach. I'm much more familiar with using primes though, so I don't think I'll feel too restricted.


Alan is talking about the RF 100-400mm 5.6-8 there, not the much more expensive EF L version.

The RF 100-400mm 5.6-8 actually costs less than the 800mm 11, so it should not be out of your reach unless the prime is too.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 25, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> My issue with these lenses is big price difference between base model + extender and these models. If that difference is purely about manufacturing, I guess Canon said something like "The new tooling costs us $1M USD, let's divide that over the 200 units we're going to produce."
> 
> But the weight, focal length and price point are all things that put these lenses in the "not for me" category, so what I think is very irrelevant


You don't have other options to get to 2400mm or 1600mm. These are very niche lenses that most will rend for that one special occasion they know they'll be used. This to me looks very much like they aren't expecting to shift a lot of them so it is special tooling. By using the 400 and 600 as base lenses it has likely drastically reduced the cost while also making sure of parts availability.


----------



## john1970 (Feb 25, 2022)

I really hope that Canon does something more interesting and innovative with the 500 mm f4 and 300 mm f2.8 RF lenses. I am hoping for DO elements to make them very compact and maybe even built in TCs. The recent batch RF super telephotos while great lenses are not up to par with Nikon releases.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 25, 2022)

djack41 said:


> It would be fun to have the 800mm for my bird photography but the reality is there is no substitute for getting close to your subject. Magnification/distance delivers diminishing return.


That depends entirely on what your are trying to do. If you are trying to illustrate the individual breast feathers of a small songbird then maybe. On the other hand if you are trying to shoot environmental portraits of wild animals, particularly where there are distance regulations, then nothing beats focal length. From what I see more and more pro wildlife photographers are chasing the latter.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 25, 2022)

arbitrage said:


> Someone pointed to a source of the RF lenses with 2xTC MTFs. So here is an update from my earlier post with those MTFs instead of the MkIII MTFs....
> 
> I think these do show some improvements with the performance. Although one would hope for more when spending so much. The old 800L has a better MTF than this new 800.



Thanks for these. Very informative. The 1200 vs 600x2 difference appears to be unnoticeable if both configurations were to be equally close to the resolution suggested with their respective theoretical MTF charts. 

The 800 appears to be perhaps noticeably better, but not even as much as the old EF 800 f/5.6 was better than either of them. 

I keep waiting for my EF 600 f/4 II to be beaten by something, as I'd LOVE to get me something as light as the Sony 600 f/4 I used to shoot. I just can't justify the expense to shed a few pounds. If Canon would give me something additional, I'd probably rationalize it. The extra magnification might have done it. DO/shorter almost certainly would have. Better IQ definitely. Guess it's all for the best.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Even if you pay the full 8.875% NYC sales tax and full UK import duty/VAT on the RF 800, it will be £3000 cheaper. You can find UK-USA return flights for £300-400. That still leaves more than £3,600/$4,900 to spend on holidays in the US. I would order one in advance in NH if I could where they have 0 tax.


Uh, 3,000-400 is 2600, not 3600 . In case you haven't checked out prices in the US lately, that won't get you very much travel time (my original point).


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 25, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> You don't have other options to get to 2400mm or 1600mm. These are very niche lenses that most will rend for that one special occasion they know they'll be used. This to me looks very much like they aren't expecting to shift a lot of them so it is special tooling. By using the 400 and 600 as base lenses it has likely drastically reduced the cost while also making sure of parts availability.


"drastically reduced the cost"...
Shouldn't it rather be: "drastically raised the price"???
Price of RF 1200 in France and Germany is $26436...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 25, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Uh, 3,000-400 is 2600, not 3600 . In case you haven't checked out prices in the US lately, that won't get you very much travel time (my original point).


Typo. My last birding trip didn't waste any cash on internal flights, we rented a car and had a great time circumnavigating Florida, and I have had great holidays driving around NH. But, that's not the point. The point is that the price of the RF 800mm f/5.6 in the UK is £3000/$4000 more expensive even if the American pays full NYC taxes, and they don't have to pay these taxes if ther live in some states and buy from N and H with a PayBoo card.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Typo. My last birding trip didn't waste any cash on internal flights, we rented a car and had a great time circumnavigating Florida, and I have had great holidays driving around NH. But, that's not the point. The point is that the price of the RF 800mm f/5.6 in the UK is £3000/$4000 more expensive even if the American pays full NYC taxes, and they don't have to pay these taxes if ther live in some states and buy from N and H with a PayBoo card.


Yup, I live in OR, so no sales tax. I wonder if Canon is forward discounting the pound due to Brexit. Always easier to discount in the future than to raise prices (not that discounts on big whites aren't rarer than hen's teeth). BTW, the CPI of 7 and something % is BS. Real inflation here has been closer to 30 or 40% in the last year. Metal and building materials are nearly double. In that light, I can understand the higher base prices on these lenses, but that doesn't directly account for the UK difference.


----------



## Chig (Feb 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Even if you pay the full 8.875% NYC sales tax and full UK import duty/VAT on the RF 800, it will be £3000 cheaper. You can find UK-USA return flights for £300-400. That still leaves more than £3,600/$4,900 to spend on holidays in the US. I would order one in advance in NH if I could where they have 0 tax.


In NZ the price is NZD$35,498.99 (USD23,860) which is pretty steep but I can buy the lens through a local shop if I'm going on an overseas trip "Duty Free" and they send it to the airport to collect in which case the price is only NZD$30,868 (USD20,747) which is still quite a lot higher than USA price of $17,000 but at least I get a full 5 year local warranty whereas if I buy one in USA I would get no warranty at all back here in NZ and I would have to pay GST on it which would bring the price back up to USD$19,550 which is nearly the same as the Duty Free price


----------



## AlanF (Feb 25, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Yup, I live in OR, so no sales tax. I wonder if Canon is forward discounting the pound due to Brexit. Always easier to discount in the future than to raise prices (not that discounts on big whites aren't rarer than hen's teeth). BTW, the CPI of 7 and something % is BS. Real inflation here has been closer to 30 or 40% in the last year. Metal and building materials are nearly double. In that light, I can understand the higher base prices on these lenses, but that doesn't directly account for the UK difference.


The pound bottomed out after Brexit and has steadily climbed against the Euro. It's been basically constant against the Yen for the last year. Canon Europe gouges 11% in GBP price against the € despite having the same warranty etc. The R5 costs £4200 here, but I can get one for £3000 from very reliable importers.


----------



## AJ (Feb 25, 2022)

Note sure if it's been mentioned yet, but here in Canada the rf 800 is listed at 21,099 CAD (Vistek) and the rf 1200 is listed at 25,999 CAD (thecamerastore)


----------



## dcm (Feb 26, 2022)

padam said:


> This commonality has been the same since Sony started with the A7 and A7R, maybe a lot earlier than that, but what year was that, 2013? xD


I was looking at Canon. In my field it started much sooner, 80s and 90s.


----------



## sanj (Feb 26, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> One factor we won't know for a while is what sort of "real" price the lenses will get, once supply constraints ease. It may make sense for Canon to have a very high suggested retail price at a time when shortages allow it to sell at exaggerated prices, which could then be converted to perpetual discounts later. The "real" price for the 600mm f/4 II was closer to $11.5k new (vs $13k list) in the US prior to the Mark III being released. Perhaps the real price for the 800 f/8 will be $14k rather than $17k once the parts shortages ease.
> 
> The advantage of putting out effectively-teleconverted older lenses is probably production efficiencies. This would work great for a company whose strategy is to gain share based in part on price. But Canon hasn't acted like a company trying to drive prices down (costs, yes).
> 
> ...


As far as I know, Canon has never reduced the prices of its premium lenses (especially significantly)


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 26, 2022)

sanj said:


> As far as I know, Canon has never reduced the prices of its premium lenses (especially significantly)


Might depend on the markets (countries) and on what you call "premium lenses".
I got some nice discounts on a few lenses, like EF 1,4/85, EF 100-400, EF 2/135, EF 16-85 etc...usually discounts plus cashback.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 26, 2022)

dilbert said:


> I wonder how much wildlife photographers are aware of their impact on the wildlife they're attempting to photograph.
> 
> If you want to see an extreme example of how bringing tourists in to photograph wildlife has an adverse impact (despite only "tracks left and photographs taken"), watch "The Year the Earth Changed" (Apple TV) - narrated by David Attenborough. Pay particular attention to the section where they look at the impact on cheetahs.
> 
> In the quest to get closer to take photographs of wildlife for instabook, humans are actually making the survival more difficult for the animals they want to photograph.


Better than the old ways of viewing and collecting wildlife. 
Shoot it and stuff it.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The pound bottomed out after Brexit and has steadily climbed against the Euro. It's been basically constant against the Yen for the last year. Canon Europe gouges 11% in GBP price against the € despite having the same warranty etc. The R5 costs £4200 here, but I can get one for £3000 from very reliable importers.


I think you just hit the nail on the head. Canon, like most big companies has individual in-country operations that are usually treated as profit centers. The base transfer price from Japan will be the same independent of country, but the margin (and expenses) the in-country operation works with will vary. In the end, you can probably thank some of your fellow Brits for the exorbitant prices. In fairness, the Canon US operation probably has more business on the video side to help cover expenses. Also, as someone who had his own video equipment manufacturing company in the US marketing to the world, I can tell you that doing business in the UK is not cheap. Canon UK is also not part of Canon Europe which is very large as it covers all of EAME except the UK. Odds are you can buy stuff cheaper in Ireland than in the UK by quite a bit.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 26, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I think you just hit the nail on the head. Canon, like most big companies has individual in-country operations that are usually treated as profit centers. The base transfer price from Japan will be the same independent of country, but the margin (and expenses) the in-country operation works with will vary. In the end, you can probably thank some of your fellow Brits for the exorbitant prices. In fairness, the Canon US operation probably has more business on the video side to help cover expenses. Also, as someone who had his own video equipment manufacturing company in the US marketing to the world, I can tell you that doing business in the UK is not cheap. Canon UK is also not part of Canon Europe which is very large as it covers all of EAME except the UK. Odds are you can buy stuff cheaper in Ireland than in the UK by quite a bit.


I corresponded with Canon UK over the price. They apologised that the price is set by Canon Europe and not by the UK, and they had no choice but to charge. Canon Europe is based in the Netherlands and the Canon UK store delivers straight from the Netherlands whenever I have bought, and not from stocks in the UK. The price in the Republic of Ireland is the same as in the rest of the EU because it is a "single market". Canon Europe also price gouges Norway, which is not in the EU as well. It's not the cost of doing business in Norway or the UK that causes the price gouging, it's the price of us not having the protection of the EU single market.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I corresponded with Canon UK over the price. They apologised that the price is set by Canon Europe and not by the UK, and they had no choice but to charge. Canon Europe is based in the Netherlands and the Canon UK store delivers straight from the Netherlands whenever I have bought, and not from stocks in the UK. The price in the Republic of Ireland is the same as in the rest of the EU because it is a "single market". Canon Europe also price gouges Norway, which is not in the EU as well. It's not the cost of doing business in Norway or the UK that causes the price gouging, it's the price of us not having the protection of the EU single market.


An extra layer in the distribution channel always adds to the price, but that sounds a lot like some hidden rules in the EU slapping on some Brexit retribution. Somehow, I doubt that kind of gouging is promoted by Canon Japan, and I am surprised they don't do business with Canon UK directly, but if politics is in the mix, that may not be so easy. Our Oregon climate is fairly similar to the UK, so another alternative would be to move here. We have lots of photo opportunities.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 27, 2022)

Dragon said:


> An extra layer in the distribution channel always adds to the price, but that sounds a lot like some hidden rules in the EU slapping on some Brexit retribution. Somehow, I doubt that kind of gouging is promoted by Canon Japan, and I am surprised they don't do business with Canon UK directly, but if politics is in the mix, that may not be so easy. Our Oregon climate is fairly similar to the UK, so another alternative would be to move here. We have lots of photo opportunities.


It is nothing to do with the "EU slapping on some Brexit retribution" - Nikon and Sony do not have that mark up in the UK as I have to point out every time this comes up and some sceptic tries to excuse it. It is quite simply Canon Europe's price gouging. It used to happen when we were in the EU and before the time there wasn't enforced price uniformity.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Feb 28, 2022)

Yowch....swing & a miss....ya'all see the MTFs? Just buy the shorter lens & the extender and you get equivalent performance (plus more versatility of also having the shorter lens if you need it)


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 28, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> You don't have other options to get to 2400mm or 1600mm. These are very niche lenses that most will rend for that one special occasion they know they'll be used. This to me looks very much like they aren't expecting to shift a lot of them so it is special tooling. By using the 400 and 600 as base lenses it has likely drastically reduced the cost while also making sure of parts availability.


Why not a 3x or 4x extender for the same result for, say $800, instead of an $8000 premium?

I’m a Questar telescope restorer and collector. When we want to get more power from a $2000 or $20,000 telescope we spend $200 for a shorter focal length eyepiece. Which works for visual and covers a full 35mm frame.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 28, 2022)

Wcsmith02 said:


> Are they really selling us a 5 to 7 thousand dollar teleconverter? Is there really no significant difference between the 400 and 600 with 2xTCs other than the massive price hike, and if so, how do they sleep at night? What am I missing?


You’re missing the signal that prices (on the 400 and 600) are going up. A lot.

$1000-$2000 each.

400 $13k
600 $15k
800 $17k
1200 $20k

Get it? 
I just contracted to buy a 400 I don’t exactly need but know I will eventually want for this reason. Used with a nice discount because it’s not in stock.

My rule of thumb is to buy used when it’s 20% off, and this purchase is 20% off of next years prices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> You don't have other options to get to 2400mm or 1600mm.





InchMetric said:


> Why not a 3x or 4x extender for the same result for, say $800, instead of an $8000 premium?


Can you provide a link to a 3x or 4x extender that is compatible with RF lenses and sells for, say $800? It was pretty obvious that @Photo Bunny means options that exist in the real world, not options that exist in your imagination.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It is nothing to do with the "EU slapping on some Brexit retribution" - Nikon and Sony do not have that mark up in the UK as I have to point out every time this comes up and some sceptic tries to excuse it. It is quite simply Canon Europe's price gouging. It used to happen when we were in the EU and before the time there wasn't enforced price uniformity.


I know nothing of Nikon's setup and not sure where Sony is today, but Sony used to have a very large operation in Basingstoke with a significant engineering group that did real design work (very unusual for a Japanese company). That operation was pretty much the base of European operations for Sony and therefore there was not two-step distribution in the UK. I think if you translate what you are getting back from Canon UK, they are simply saying that Canon Europe is treating them just like any other dealer and because they, in turn, also have dealers, stuff costs more since Canon UK also has to have a margin to survive. Sounds like a nasty bit of internal politics to me and you are on the blunt end.


----------



## sanj (Feb 28, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Might depend on the markets (countries) and on what you call "premium lenses".
> I got some nice discounts on a few lenses, like EF 1,4/85, EF 100-400, EF 2/135, EF 16-85 etc...usually discounts plus cashback.


Getting a discount and Canon reducing its prices are two different things.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 28, 2022)

Canon's RF lens prices have been weird of date. The new RF 70-200mm f2.8's price is an example. They are charging a premium because they can and people will buy them. Look at the price difference between the EF400mm f2.8 II LIS and the optically identical RF version. The difference is essentially a bolted on EF to RF adapter. The new RF 800mm f5.6 is rumoured to be a EF400mm f2.8 III L with a custom 2x TC and RF adapter bolted on....for $4K and the new 1200mm f8 is rumoured to be an EF 600mm f4 III LIS re-purposed with a similar 2x TC and RF adapted bolted on. Canon looks like they are re-using old and re-selling old stock with over priced adaptions. If people don't buy them because they were overpriced to start with, then Canon will re-purpose them and try to sell them for even more kidding their market that these are all "new" lenses.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 28, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> Yowch....swing & a miss....ya'all see the MTFs? Just buy the shorter lens & the extender and you get equivalent performance (plus more versatility of also having the shorter lens if you need it)


Interesting that Canon haven't released the optical block chart diagrams...ohhh....look Canon have re-used the old lens formula and slapped a custom tele on it...lol...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 28, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Why not a 3x or 4x extender for the same result for, say $800, instead of an $8000 premium?
> 
> I’m a Questar telescope restorer and collector. When we want to get more power from a $2000 or $20,000 telescope we spend $200 for a shorter focal length eyepiece. Which works for visual and covers a full 35mm frame.


Why are you asking me?


----------



## davidcl0nel (Feb 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can you provide a link to a 3x or 4x extender that is compatible with RF lenses and sells for, say $800? It was pretty obvious that @Photo Bunny means options that exist in the real world, not options that exist in your imagination.


Canon wants to sell a RF lens, not me.

There are some more possibilities like using an "old" EF 600mm III (identical optic, isn't?) and stack as many EF 2x II (not III) extenders together as you want. f/64 to go!
Yes, I know about limits of stacking extenders, but this wasn't the question here.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 28, 2022)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Interesting that Canon haven't released the optical block chart diagrams...ohhh....look Canon have re-used the old lens formula and slapped a custom tele on it...lol...


The “old lens formula” is a recent state-of-the-art design. All made and sold brand new.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 28, 2022)

sanj said:


> Getting a discount and Canon reducing its prices are two different things.


Right, but cashback is a Canon thing!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> Canon wants to sell a RF lens, not me.
> 
> There are some more possibilities like using an "old" EF 600mm III (identical optic, isn't?) and stack as many EF 2x II (not III) extenders together as you want. f/64 to go!
> Yes, I know about limits of stacking extenders, but this wasn't the question here.


Obviously there are other possibilities, the one I have tried personally is using both the RF 2x and the EF 2x III behind a 600/4 II for a 2400mm f/16 lens.

My point was that a 3x or 4x extender are _*not*_ among those possibilities.


----------



## NorskHest (Feb 28, 2022)

I can’t imagine buying the version 3 400 and or 600 which is softer than the version 2 ef lenses then adding magnification to a lens that is not as sharp and has less contrast for effectively double what you could get a used one for


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 28, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> The “old lens formula” is a recent state-of-the-art design. All made and sold brand new.


Actually, the 400mm f2.8 LIS III is a 5 year old design that was brought out quickly to match the Sony FE 400mmm f2.8 GM OSS that beat the previous Mk II Canon on every measurable metric. The mk II is a great lens, but it was blind sided by the Sony and the mk III needed to match it. To re-use this 5 year old design by adding an extra internal teleconverter to the previous lens and touting it as a "NEW" 800mm f5.6 is hardly state of the art lens design. Words like "Fudged" and "knock it out to market...hope no one notices" comes to mind.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 28, 2022)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Actually, the 400mm f2.8 LIS III is a 5 year old design that was brought out quickly to match the Sony FE 400mmm f2.8 GM OSS that beat the previous Mk II Canon on every measurable metric. The mk II is a great lens, but it was blind sided by the Sony and the mk III needed to match it. To re-use this 5 year old design by adding an extra internal teleconverter to the previous lens and touting it as a "NEW" 800mm f5.6 is hardly state of the art lens design. Words like "Fudged" and "knock it out to market...hope no one notices" comes to mind.


Thanks for sharing your mind-reading exploits with the Canon decision makers.

I also note that this "5-year-old" design was released 38 months ago. Maybe get a refund on your calendar?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> I also note that this "5-year-old" design was released 38 months ago. Maybe get a refund on your calendar?


So in your personal reality, complicated, expensive products are released immediately after they are designed. Probably you’ve acquired all your business knowledge for free on the Internet, so fortunately you do not need to feel obligated to refund anyone for that. At least you got what you paid for.


----------



## SnowMiku (Mar 1, 2022)

timmy said:


> As someone who photographs wildlife for a living, I truly don’t understand the purpose of a 1200 f/8. We need light. I can’t remember the last time I shot over 5.6 for a wildlife shot. Dramatic light equals a dramatic photograph and f8 won’t be able to do this. Also, I don’t care how big your lens is, your subject has to be fairly close. The further away they are the more atmospheric conditions you are looking through, in other words, your photo turns to mush.


1200mm @ f/8 would still give a good shallow depth of field and the R6, R5 and R3 would be capable of handling the extra stop. I agree about the atmospheric conditions with the far distance shots.


----------



## john1970 (Mar 3, 2022)

One advantage of the new 800 mm f5.6 vs. 600 mm f4 with 1.4x TC is the much closer focusing distance, which is great if you can get close enough to your subject for wildlife portraits.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 3, 2022)

john1970 said:


> One advantage of the new 800 mm f5.6 vs. 600 mm f4 with 1.4x TC is the much closer focusing distance, which is great if you can get close enough to your subject for wildlife portraits.


The 800mm f/5.6 has the same minimum focus distance as the 400mm f/2.8 + RF 2x.


----------



## David_E (Mar 9, 2022)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...


$17k for the 800? Probably not the lens for me. My RF 800mm ƒ11 IS STM is quite satisfactory for my minimal requirements for a long telephoto. Here's a photo of a northern flicker, _Colaptes auratus_, made just yesterday with that lens on an R5. Hand held. Body + lens stabilization are excellent.


__
https://flic.kr/p/2n7A7Rs


----------



## Johnw (Apr 23, 2022)

I would absolutely own the 1200, if I could afford it. Shooting at 3840 in crop mode would be spectacular for astro.


----------

