# Here are the RF 600mm f/11 & RF 800mm f/11 super-telephoto lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 6, 2020)

> Canon will announce some very interesting super-telephoto prime lenses on Thursday alongside the EOS R5 and EOS R6.
> *Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM Specifications:*
> 
> Retractable design
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## peters (Jul 6, 2020)

That weight and size is realy amazing


----------



## gzroxas (Jul 6, 2020)

So that was what they had hidden in their sleeves.. a retractable design that makes these lenses much more portable. This makes the f/11 more believable. I wonder how many people would buy them.
I’d like to try them out once, even just for some fun


----------



## sobrien (Jul 6, 2020)

My goodness they are light. The 800mm lighter than the 28-70!

Clever retractable design also. Important given these will rarely (if ever) be the only lens you will want to bring out with you.

Assuming IQ is up to scratch I can these going down very well with enthusiast wildlife photographers, particularly those that are on the go.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 6, 2020)

That 6m minimum focus distance for the 800mm is pretty bad in my opinion. 
All depends on the IQ and price, that 800mm could be very interesting as a portable wildlife lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 6, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ...Retractable design...


Really interesting. 


I hope Canon does not mess it up by setting the MRSP too high...


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 6, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> That 6m minimum focus distance for the 800mm is pretty bad in my opinion.
> All depends on the IQ and price, that 800mm could be very interesting as a portable wildlife lens.


The EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM has 6.0 m
The EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM has 4.2 m

So pretty much what you can get out of such super teles.


----------



## chris_overseas (Jul 6, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> That 6m minimum focus distance for the 800mm is pretty bad in my opinion.
> All depends on the IQ and price, that 800mm could be very interesting as a portable wildlife lens.



Why do you think it is bad? I have the 800mm f/5.6 and it has the same minimum focus distance. It's rarely a problem in the real world.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 6, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> The EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM has 6.0 m
> The EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM has 4.2 m
> 
> So pretty much what you can get out of such super teles.



Oh, ok. I remembered around 4.5m for the 800 5.6.


----------



## Aaron D (Jul 6, 2020)

Looks like there's an Arca-Swiss wedge on the bottom of these!


----------



## Billct (Jul 6, 2020)

Why f11 what am I missing here.


----------



## RMac (Jul 6, 2020)

Interesting. - pretty unique design. Also a pretty low element count - these might be pretty affordable (although I'm guessing DO elements are not so easy to manufacture).
Now that we've seen pictures of the lenses, I'd really like to see some pictures taken through the lenses...


----------



## Konachu (Jul 6, 2020)

Very interesting. Looking forward to seeing reviews of these in action.


----------



## RMac (Jul 6, 2020)

Billct said:


> Why f11 what am I missing here.


There was a whole discussion about this recently on here. The RF system is able to autofocus at much higher f-numbers, which enables compact designs like this.


----------



## Billct (Jul 6, 2020)

RMac said:


> There was a whole discussion about this recently on here. The RF system is able to autofocus at much higher f-numbers, which enables compact designs like this.


Not a lens to render smooth backgrounds tho for wildlife then.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 6, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Why do you think it is bad? I have the 800mm f/5.6 and it has the same minimum focus distance. It's rarely a problem in the real world.


The 800mm f/5.6 also has the same .14x magnification as well as the same 6m minimum focus distance. Do you find that you wind up using the teleconverter a lot to get more magnification?
I wonder if these lenses will be usable with the teleconverters given the aperture. 
Key differences: the 800mm f/5.6 weighs 3.5 times more than this lens at 4490g and costs $12,999 new.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 6, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> The 800mm f/5.6 also has the same .14x magnification as well as the same 6m minimum focus distance. Do you find that you wind up using the teleconverter a lot to get more magnification?
> I wonder if these lenses will be usable with the teleconverters given the aperture.
> Key differences: the 800mm f/5.6 weighs 3.5 times more than this lens at 4490g and costs $12,999 new.



I only had the old 400 5.6 i remember i was bothered sometimes by the long 3.5m minimum focusing distance. Not very often tho.

These new lenses apparently are compatible with both TCs but who wants to add TC on an F11 lens? Maybe for moon shots or long exposures or some landscapes


----------



## SV (Jul 6, 2020)

I think I'll wait for the f/16 versions


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Why do you think it is bad? I have the 800mm f/5.6 and it has the same minimum focus distance. It's rarely a problem in the real world.


Maybe not a problem in your world, but it is in mine. I use the same lens for birds and butterflies and dragonflies. My 100-400 and hopefully the new 100-500 as well get me down to 1m mfd and as long as 700-1000mm for reach with a TC. And I also use a 500mm PF with a mfd of 3m, and will take TCs at the same mfd. When you go out on a nature hike with one lens (and I admit that would not be a 800/5.6), you need both decent mfd as well as reach.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 6, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> The EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM has 6.0 m
> The EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM has 4.2 m
> 
> So pretty much what you can get out of such super teles.


Good point!


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 6, 2020)

Very interesting looking.. f11 at 800mm appeals to me more than it does at 600mm though. In the right conditions, such as African or Indian safaris, 800mm in a lens that small and light will be awesome!


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 6, 2020)

peters said:


> That weight and size is realy amazing


Not in the least considering how slow they are.


----------



## HankMD (Jul 6, 2020)

The 800mm would be a good lens for those far-away shorebirds on bright sunny days. Makes RF bodies just that more enticing. Smart move on Canon's part!


----------



## amorse (Jul 6, 2020)

Billct said:


> Why f11 what am I missing here.


I know this forum has discussed it at length, but my thoughts are that the f/11 sacrifice is manageable considering how little light is needed to focus using these bodies (compared to a DSLR anyway). I think if you are a full frame user, the only other way to get 800mm of magnification (regardless of f/value) is either spend A LOT of money, or use a teleconverter on a somewhat expensive lens and give up autofocus and IQ (in many instances). Or, get a crop sensor camera or M4/3 with a bigger lens.

For me, I see this as a sign that Canon is trying to make full frame more accessible to budget full frame buyers. There could be any number of reasons why Canon would do that. Maybe because Canon sees consumers moving up-market to full frame due to competition of smart phones at the lower end, or Canon sees an opportunity to squeeze out smaller sensor manufacturers in m4/3 or aps-c, or maybe they just want to get out of producing smaller sensors and need a way to keep price sensitive buyers in the Canon ecosystem. 

Whatever Canon's reasons, making massive magnification accessible on full frame at a (assumed) budget friendly price point seems to be targeting people who want big magnification but can't afford 5 figure lenses. I'd bet there are plenty of people out there in that situation. 

Obviously this argument goes right out the window if these aren't price conscious lenses!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

Questions / thoughts:

1) Retractable supertele primes: did _*anyone *_see that coming? I sure didn't. I presumed all the wow factor would be in getting the barrel diameter and weight down due to f/11.

2) Why the heck is 800mm f/11 requiring a 95mm front filter size? Did an earlier 77 / 82 / 86mm concept vignette too much or something? Or is 'throwing away some of the periphery' some clever means to salvage a sharper image?

3) It looks like all the controls / rings / buttons / etc. are on the extending bit. It won't trombone like the 100-400L I in use -- it will surely be fixed in length -- but the handling may feel familiar to 100-400L I in that all the control items are 'down barrel' somewhat

4) When did John Mulaney become a photography model?

5) Is a DO element in a lens that does not get the green ring a common thing? Is this a first, or have DO elements been hiding in non-DO named lenses for some time?

- A


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jul 6, 2020)

If the high-ISO performance on the R6 is up to snuff then I could see a lot of hobbyist birdwatchers snatching up these lenses.


----------



## Tangent (Jul 6, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> Looks like there's an Arca-Swiss wedge on the bottom of these!


Good point. I wonder if that section functions as a tripod collar also... Looks possible.
... Looking more closely I see in the small lens images that this section has the IS control, so not likely to rotate, but perhaps it is possible to rotate from vert to horiz somehow. Otherwise we might want to mount it on an L plate! For most shots with a lens such as this I'd be in horiz mode anyway, so in practice not a huge deal. Anyway, we'll know soon enough.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 6, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I only had the old 400 5.6 i remember i was bothered sometimes by the long 3.5m minimum focusing distance. Not very often tho.
> 
> These new lenses apparently are compatible with both TCs but who wants to add TC on an F11 lens? Maybe for moon shots or long exposures or some landscapes


Not that you would want to add the TC, per se, just that you might wind up needing more magnification!


----------



## Aaron Lozano (Jul 6, 2020)

I wonder if it would it be possible to get an L version of these at F8

Or even a 400 F5.6L with that precise design.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

amorse said:


> For me, I see this as a sign that Canon is trying to make full frame more accessible to budget full frame buyers. There could be any number of reasons why Canon would do that.




So many reasons:

1) Ask Olympus. Small sensored platforms are slowly dying out. In 10 years time, FF may be *entry* level for ILC buyers if cell phones continue to devour dedicated camera sales. 

2) In a Borg move, Canon is diversifying the appeal of the RF platform -- resistance is futile. We got a slice of Ferrari exotic super lenses, now we get some downright pedestrian ones. This is a very different strategy than Sony or Nikon, which started with small-ish f/4 zooms and then pivoted towards pro glass. 

3) Canon is showing the world exactly what this fully operational battlestation sexy new platform can do if you fully commit to one variable. Skull-splittingly sharp f/1.2 primes. Epic f/2 zooms. Now we get tiny f/7.1 zooms and f/11 primes. The world is your oyster on this new platform.

4) In the timeless referendum of 'Mirrorless is all about being small and light' vs. 'Mirrorless is all about doing what FF SLRs can do and _then _some', Canon is wisely putting money down on both. Call this appeasement of the 'small and light' crowd if you will, but these smaller lenses are putting down quite a marker for those that want to do more with less size and weight.

- A


----------



## RMac (Jul 6, 2020)

Billct said:


> Not a lens to render smooth backgrounds tho for wildlife then.


Well, f/11 and the use of diffractive optics are both likely to be knocks against this lens in the blurry background department. Then again, at 600mm or 800mm, even at f/11, if your subject is _relatively _close compared to your background (a song bird, for instance), higher f-numbers can still give you a lot of subject separation from the background.

For instance, this is shot at 400mm f/8 (I was shooting my ef 70-200 f2.8L ISiii with a 2xiii extender and stopped down to f/8 because this combo is a little soft wide-open). I shot it on a crop body (7D) and had to crop the final image a fair bit. I don't find the background distracting in the least. That's partly because of contrast (it was a shadowy surface of a pond) but also because it's nicely blurred, even at f/8 (bird was probably 5-6 yards/meters away, background more like 20-40 yards/meters away). I'd imagine either of these lenses on a full-frame body would yield very similar if not better results provided the use of diffractive optics doesn't do anything too obnoxious to the rendering of out-of-focus regions.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> Not that you would want to add the TC, per se, just that you might wind up needing more magnification!




From the other thread CR Guy just posted:

_"Each of these teleconverters will be compatible with the RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM, RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM."_​
Reach for the stars, people. Just don't ask for bokeh at the same time. 

- A


----------



## Stuart (Jul 6, 2020)

Retractable - does that mean the lens barrel twists and clicks into place before it can be used. 
Will it still work is not fully extended? Even with off focus effects.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

RMac said:


> Well, f/11 and the use of diffractive optics are both likely to be knocks against this lens in the blurry background department. Then again, at 600mm or 800mm, even at f/11, if your subject is _relatively _close compared to your background (a song bird, for instance), higher f-numbers can still give you a lot of subject separation from the background.
> 
> For instance, this is shot at 400mm f/8 (I was shooting my ef 70-200 f2.8L ISiii with a 2xiii extender and stopped down to f/8 because this combo is a little soft wide-open). I shot it on a crop body (7D) and had to crop the final image a fair bit. I don't find the background distracting in the least. That's partly because of contrast (it was a shadowy surface of a pond) but also because it's nicely blurred, even at f/8 (bird was probably 5-6 yards/meters away, background more like 20-40 yards/meters away). I'd imagine either of these lenses on a full-frame body would yield very similar if not better results provided the use of diffractive optics doesn't do anything too obnoxious to the rendering of out-of-focus regions.




I take your point (and that's a lovely shot), but just as some folks are addicted to reach, others are to subject separation. 

You very artfully worked the physics and background there. Not all folks have the proximity to subject or relatively friendly/distant background behind the subject. A larger max aperture lens would be a more powerful tool in that instance.

I just don't think an f/11 prime will be aimed at anyone who appreciates all of that. These lenses scream of amateur photog on safari... or possibly the traveling birder on a family trip who vowed not to bring the kitchen sink but still wanted absurd reach anyway. 

- A


----------



## m1mm1m (Jul 6, 2020)

Is the beginning of the end of the Big White?

I know since the 100-400 came out with it's excellent IQ and IS and good pairing with the 1.4x...... my 600 has seen little use... Specially given the cropability of the 5DSR.. This lens gives me a usable "effective" 100-800 range....

This just seems to be an extension of that same concept... smaller, lighter, more portable -- and most importantly... without giving up IQ...

Am I wrong?


----------



## CanonOregon (Jul 6, 2020)

Billct said:


> Why f11 what am I missing here.


Weight and price- and hopefully the R5 & R6 will handle high ISO just fine.


----------



## Kiton (Jul 6, 2020)

Those lens would be great for news fotogs to keep in the trunk for hostage taking, bomb scars etc where you don't want to drag a 400 2.8 with a converter. If the price is right, I am getting the 800mm.


----------



## hoodlum (Jul 6, 2020)

I wish the 600mm was f8 for the extra stop of light and then the 1.4tc could be added for 840mm f11 with a shorter MFD than the 800mm f11.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

m1mm1m said:


> Is the beginning of the end of the Big White?
> 
> I know since the 100-400 came out with it's excellent IQ and IS and good pairing with the 1.4x...... my 600 has seen little use... Specially given the cropability of the 5DSR.. This lens gives me a usable "effective" 100-800 range....
> 
> ...




This doesn't end/replace the superwhites. Not at all. This is reach for the masses without needing a loan or teleconverter to get it. This is Canon listening to its users, and we should applaud it, IMHO.

I think RF superwhites will eventually happen. They kind of have to.

And I would be absolutely stunned if the IQ from an f/11 max aperture lens -- even if sharp -- had half the pop / color / contrast / impact of an f/5.6 shot from a proper superwhite.

- A


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

Fascinating. Did not see these lenses coming. Curious to see how they perform. Canon full of surprises these days. 

If Canon expects them to be used for video they'll need some sort of tripod mount. I guess clever folks could sort something out on their own.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 6, 2020)

SV said:


> I think I'll wait for the f/16 versions


they have an f22 1200mm coming. it will be good for taking photos of the sun.


----------



## Andreasb (Jul 6, 2020)

As a bird photographer, with a 400 F4 DO II , 500 F5.6 PF and 600mm F4 lenses. I have absolutely NO interest in F11 lenses because of two things:
1. Shutter speed will be to low at F11, if you crank up ISO to 6400 you might get it up to be OK. As a reference I try to stay under ISO 400 and will in a very worst situation go up to ISO 800. We all know ISO performance has stalled with the sensors. The results will be too noisy images for me. I want faster shutter speeds for birds in flight, F11 wont cut it. F5.6 is on the border of being acceptable in this regard. I have to take off the Tele extender when to gets dark or in the winter here in the PNW These lenses will be sunny day in Florida lenses as far as I'm concerned.
2. No pleasing bokeh at F11.

These are consumer offerings, not for serious wildlife photographers, Safari? I doubt the weather sealing will hold up to it, Shorebirds in a distance? The atmospheric abberations will not be helpful at a distance no matter what lens. Morning shoot at Bosque sunrise? I'm having problems getting enough shutter speed with my F4 lenses.

The only highlight there is the small size and low weight, great for travel. Anyone want to travel right now?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 6, 2020)

Andreasb said:


> As a bird photographer, with a 400 F4 DO II , 500 F5.6 PF and 600mm F4 lenses. I have absolutely NO interest in F11 lenses because of two things:
> 1. Shutter speed will be to low at F11, if you crank up ISO to 6400 you might get it up to be OK. As a reference I try to stay under ISO 400 and will in a very worst situation go up to ISO 800. We all know ISO performance has stalled with the sensors. The results will be too noisy images for me. I want faster shutter speeds for birds in flight, F11 wont cut it. F5.6 is on the border of being acceptable in this regard. I have to take off the Tele extender when to gets dark or in the winter here in the PNW These lenses will be sunny day in Florida lenses as far as I'm concerned.
> 2. No pleasing bokeh at F11.
> 
> ...



Yes, i want to travel. You buy a lens for years to come and hopefully things will get back to normal soon.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Fascinating. Did not see these lenses coming. Curious to see how they perform. Canon full of surprises these days.
> 
> If Canon expects them to be used for video they'll need some sort of tripod mount. I guess clever folks could sort something out on their own.




There is some kind of bump on the bottom. It's too built up to be a normal panel for switches, and buttons/switches wouldn't be clocked at that location for convenient use while shooting.

Good money that's a feature for a support.




Your guess is as good as mine as to what form that takes. Could be a simple flat surface with a threaded hole, could be an arca plate (doubt it), or perhaps Canon has a card up its sleeve. That tapered ring closest to the mount likely is associated with extending the barrel at startup... but what if it is a friction ring working with the next section to the left (i.e. the tripod mounting block itself) to rotate freely? That would allow the camera body and all optical elements to rotate to portrait pretty easily. #aguycandream

- A


----------



## futzy (Jul 6, 2020)

Billct said:


> Not a lens to render smooth backgrounds tho for wildlife then.


Well at 40m distance DOF is 1.66m. 81cm in front and 85cm at the back. So I guess this could still render a nice blurred background. For 800mm lens.


----------



## RMac (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I take your point (and that's a lovely shot), but just as some folks are addicted to reach, others are to subject separation.
> 
> You very artfully worked the physics and background there. Not all folks have the proximity to subject or relatively friendly/distant background behind the subject. A larger max aperture lens would be a more powerful tool in that instance.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your compliments regarding the image. I definitely agree that this shot played to the strengths of what I had and is held up by elements that don't depend on having a low f-number (lighting and contrast being the two big ones), and with better gear I could have ended up with an even better image (at least better resolution). I think it may be premature to assert that these "scream amateur photog on safari", though. They certainly will appeal to amateurs in a way that 5-figure lenses don't, and they definitely won't be as well-built as 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/5.6 L glass. But until we see actual sample images and bench test results, the jury is still out on image quality. If they end up being reasonably sharp wide open, I think the size and weight could make them compelling tools for professionals in a number of situations.

Another thing to consider is that Canon is very much working to hold onto space in a market segment that is being steadily eroded by cell phones and computational photography. Long telephoto imagery is one place where cell phones don't compete with ILCs. These sorts of lenses help Canon press their advantage in this regard.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> There is some kind of bump on the bottom. It's too built up to be a normal panel for switches, and buttons/switches wouldn't be clocked at that location for convenient use while shooting.
> 
> Good money that's a feature for a support.
> 
> ...


Yes I was looking at that. I don't see any obvious mounting points but they could be covered by that rubbery material. If it doesn't come with a hood it probably doesn't come with a tripod collar and I haven't seen that listed as an accessory. It wouldn't need to rotate for video but I expect it will somehow. i'm sure Canon has it sorted.


----------



## geffy (Jul 6, 2020)

glad i kept my old 500 4.5 i think these lenses are hand hold able in brighter worlds


----------



## azizjhn (Jul 6, 2020)

I only looking for 2 things in these lenses a good price and weather sealing


----------



## RMac (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> From the other thread CR Guy just posted:
> 
> _"Each of these teleconverters will be compatible with the RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM, RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM."_​
> Reach for the stars, people. Just don't ask for bokeh at the same time.
> ...


Or autofocus...


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 6, 2020)

I've been trying to keep an open mind about these, but I'll almost certainly have a 100-500 and a 1.4x which gives me 700 mm at f/10 in a lens which is just a few mm longer than the 600/11 DO when retracted and _much _shorter than the 800. I also get (with the 1.4x) around three times the maximum magnification for butterflies, snakes etc., and I won't need to buy any new filters! Or indeed a lens hood. The only disadvantage I will have is weight but even that is not a huge difference vs the 800.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 6, 2020)

Billct said:


> Why f11 what am I missing here.



f/4, f/5.6, and f/8


----------



## CJudge (Jul 6, 2020)

Some of the comments here suggesting that this lens will only appeal to amateurs remind me of statements in the past that smaller sensors could only appeal to amateurs. The best camera (and lens) is the one you have with you. Until now, the only people who could shoot 800mm focal lengths were the people who could afford the hefty price-tag, and those who were willing to shlep them around.

These lenses could very well start a mini-revolution in the field of telephoto shooting. It's opened the door to exponentially more people, and I think we'll all benefit from (and be impressed by) the images they create.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jul 6, 2020)

m1mm1m said:


> Is the beginning of the end of the Big White?
> 
> I know since the 100-400 came out with it's excellent IQ and IS and good pairing with the 1.4x...... my 600 has seen little use... Specially given the cropability of the 5DSR.. This lens gives me a usable "effective" 100-800 range....
> 
> ...




Not at all....the 100-400 & 1.4x vs the 600 F4 is no contest. The 600 gives professional-tier images. The 100-400 without a TC gives very good images, with some degradation with a 1.4. There's nothing wrong with the 100-400 but to say that the lenses announced here are going to be within even shouting distance of the 600 f4 (or whatever the R variant becomes) is just not realistic.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 6, 2020)

I’m intrigued by this development, given that I’ve been searching for YEARS for a way to get into birding and long-range shooting without having to spend $$$ or weigh myself down...

600/11 is just too much of a compromise to me personally...OTOH, 800/11 could be workable depending on IQ, especially given the light weight. I’m curious to get field reports on this one, and hopefully a high ISO sensor breakthrough is on the horizon to increase usability and flexibility of this class of lens...


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jul 6, 2020)

hoodlum said:


> I wish the 600mm was f8 for the extra stop of light and then the 1.4tc could be added for 840mm f11 with a shorter MFD than the 800mm f11.



I was thinking that for the 800.... 800 f8 with the r5 would be fun....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> There is some kind of bump on the bottom. It's too built up to be a normal panel for switches, and buttons/switches wouldn't be clocked at that location for convenient use while shooting.
> 
> Good money that's a feature for a support.
> 
> ...


There is a second photo that shows what appears to be a mounting hole. I suspect a optional foot might mount there. They are light, and with both in lens IS + IBIS, many may not need a tripod mount.

What I am curious about is the camera autofocus working at f/22. Both the R5 and the R6 are claimed to have the same autofocus, something certainly changed from my R. My R can AF slowly at f/11 but just barely.

Like Alan, I like a telephoto lens that focuses at close distances. I understand that there may be too much movement required for close AF. The 100-500 will focus closely at 0.9M




ears to be a mounting threaded


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

If you are going to use those lenses without hoods you might need to consider adding protective filters. Hard to imagine that won't cause some flare issues. I wonder how much bigger they are with the hood?


----------



## Joules (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Call this appeasement of the 'small and light' crowd if you will, but these smaller lenses are putting down quite a marker for those that want to do more with less size and weight.
> 
> - A


Nice to see you back on the forum. Fully agree with you, it's quite interesting to see the direction Canon is going. When they innovate, they really go all out. 

Did you comment on the upcoming RF 50 mm 1.8 already somewhere?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There is a second photo that shows what appears to be a mounting hole. I suspect a optional foot might mount there. They are light, and with both in lens IS + IBIS, many may not need a tripod mount.


Good catch. It does look similar to 100-400 II foot. 

RRS will probably make a nice Arca compatible foot for it and it will only be 1/2 the price of the lens.


----------



## padam (Jul 6, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> I've been trying to keep an open mind about these, but I'll almost certainly have a 100-500 and a 1.4x which gives me 700 mm at f/10 in a lens which is just a few mm longer than the 600/11 DO when retracted and _much _shorter than the 800. I also get (with the 1.4x) around three times the maximum magnification for butterflies, snakes etc., and I won't need to buy any new filters! Or indeed a lens hood. The only disadvantage I will have is weight but even that is not a huge difference vs the 800.


The main differentiation is cost per performance.
The 100-500 will probably cost 3000$ and 500$ for the 1.4x extender (at least).
It's sharpest point won't be at 500mm and the extended may degrade that slightly as well, I don't see it being as good as the 800/11 and it may have a somewhat busier background rendering.

But we are comparing different things altogether, a long prime is always going to be much more specialised, and with a slow aperture, that takes it even further. 

Actually, that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it basically forces its user to maximise its narrow operating range.
(Although I am sure most people would curse if something suddenly came closer to them, and they couldn't achieve focus or if there is not enough light to get a usable image)


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> If you are going to use those lenses without hoods you might need to consider adding protective filters. Hard to imagine that won't cause some flare issues. I wonder how much bigger they are with the hood?


The one problem with DO and PF lenses is flare. They don't work well against the light, and you need a hood unless the sun is behind you.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 6, 2020)

sobrien said:


> My goodness they are light. The 800mm lighter than the 28-70!
> 
> Clever retractable design also. Important given these will rarely (if ever) be the only lens you will want to bring out with you.
> 
> Assuming IQ is up to scratch I can these going down very well with enthusiast wildlife photographers, particularly those that are on the go.



agree good design, hopefully affordable and punters can upgrade later if they need faster lenses - e.g., buying 2nd hand EF prime 600 EF F4 or Sigma equiv Lens that they may do for the RF mount, e.g., 60-600mm EF, etc


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> Nice to see you back on the forum. Fully agree with you, it's quite interesting to see the direction Canon is going. When they innovate, they really go all out.
> 
> Did you comment on the upcoming RF 50 mm 1.8 already somewhere?




I chatter more on Twitter these days. But I tend to re-surface here when 'Canta' arrives with all the presents. 

And I really want to witness the freak out when any of the following occurs with the R5:

1) the R5 turns out to be a $3499 camera just as I predicted, or​​2) 8K is onboard but magically requires a pricey one-time trip to the shop for unlocking or requires a very expensive optional bolt-on and the whole world screams out loud​
...but that would be off-topic. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There is a second photo that shows what appears to be a mounting hole. I suspect a optional foot might mount there. They are light, and with both in lens IS + IBIS, many may not need a tripod mount.




Good eye MSP I missed it!

Surely a foot mounting option... which would imply the ring for rotating to portrait might already part of the lens, no?

- A


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 6, 2020)

Billct said:


> Not a lens to render smooth backgrounds tho for wildlife then.


Canon already makes those lens. Why not get one of those? What am I missing?


----------



## noncho (Jul 6, 2020)

Canon, those telephoto primes look good!
Please fill the line with 300 F4 DO (420 F5.6 / 600 F8 with TCs). 

I'll continue to use my Sigma 150-600 until then


----------



## Terry Danks (Jul 6, 2020)

I want to like these things. People seem intent on pointing out the obvious, i.e., they will not supplant the white supers. Of course they won't! This misses the point IMO. 
I've owned both the 600 f/4 L IS Canon and an older MF 800mm f5.6 Nikkor. So, I have more than a few years experience schlepping them about. To put it mildly, they were not very portable.

These new lenses could be game changers. I hope so. I reserve judgement until I see the prices and get some reviews as to how well IS, combined with IBIS works, as well as image quality of the optics. 
We're already seeing software that can emulate bokeh. Call it what you will, it just may be part of the future and likely will find its way into more widespread usage as it improves. Assuming it WILL improve. 
I recall when Canon's IS was referred to contemptuously as "wobbly bits" in lenses that no decent lens maker would ever consider! This, of course, was the refrain of the fan bois whose preferred brand had not yet brought stabilized lenses to market. I also heard on one occasion that"digital has ruined photography." LOL! Never underestimate how reactionary some people can be and how resistant to change. 
I no longer have the 600 f/4. I still do have the EF300mm f/2.8L IS and 1.4TC. It too is more than a handful for other than short periods. I look forward to at least hearing more about these lenses and have an open mind. Whether or not I purchase one remains to be seen.


----------



## sanj (Jul 6, 2020)

We have to keep the quality expectations low. Then we will be happy. Build and IQ


----------



## esglord (Jul 6, 2020)

really lightweight. could be a godsend for someone lacking in physical arm strength


----------



## mppix (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I take your point (and that's a lovely shot), but just as some folks are addicted to reach, others are to subject separation.
> 
> You very artfully worked the physics and background there. Not all folks have the proximity to subject or relatively friendly/distant background behind the subject. A larger max aperture lens would be a more powerful tool in that instance.
> 
> ...



IMO, these lenses are more a replacement for a binocular than for the existing great whites in scope.

I am thinking people with outdoors jobs, e.g. rangers, or in outdoor recreational activities, like trekking and bike tours, can take these lenses even if the primary "mission" is not or only in part photography.

Obviously, this is not aimed at professional wildlife photographers. Professionals have the great whites. However, they come with a weight, volume, and price penalty that is justifiable only for professional use (including the serious amateur that rented them for that safari).


----------



## slclick (Jul 6, 2020)

Personally I have my very high quality 560 @ f/8 so the little bro isn't for me but I have no problem thinking like mppix stated who might use and enjoy these lenses. Good for Canta. More of everything, low, medium and high end. I love differentiation.


----------



## vscd (Jul 6, 2020)

Looks like the old foreskin telephoto lenses are not dead, yet


----------



## JoeDavid (Jul 6, 2020)

Instead of the 600/11 I’d prefer to see an updated RF version of the 300/4L IS that is compatible with the converters.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 6, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Good catch. It does look similar to 100-400 II foot.
> 
> RRS will probably make a nice Arca compatible foot for it and it will only be 1/2 the price of the lens.



Foot, hood and 95mm filter is going to be expensive relative to the price for the 800.



padam said:


> The main differentiation is cost per performance.
> The 100-500 will probably cost 3000$ and 500$ for the 1.4x extender (at least).
> It's sharpest point won't be at 500mm and the extended may degrade that slightly as well, I don't see it being as good as the 800/11 and it may have a somewhat busier background rendering.
> 
> ...



I wouldn’t count on the 100-500 being weak at 500. The 100-400 II is superb at its longest focal length. On a 5DsR, I could never see any weakness at 400mm versus 100mm, at least at infinity.


----------



## tomri (Jul 6, 2020)

Looks like with the RF mount we only have a choice between unreasonably underspecced and insanely expensive. f11 and f7.1 lenses, even the 85mm f2, or 8k video which nobody needs in the R5 vs only 20mpix in the R6. Maybe that makes sense for Canon (people buy twice), but it does not make sense for me.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 6, 2020)

SV said:


> I think I'll wait for the f/16 versions



You can take the F-16 and F-22 versions to air shows.


----------



## amorse (Jul 6, 2020)

Andreasb said:


> As a bird photographer, with a 400 F4 DO II , 500 F5.6 PF and 600mm F4 lenses. I have absolutely NO interest in F11 lenses because of two things:
> 1. Shutter speed will be to low at F11, if you crank up ISO to 6400 you might get it up to be OK. As a reference I try to stay under ISO 400 and will in a very worst situation go up to ISO 800. We all know ISO performance has stalled with the sensors. The results will be too noisy images for me. I want faster shutter speeds for birds in flight, F11 wont cut it. F5.6 is on the border of being acceptable in this regard. I have to take off the Tele extender when to gets dark or in the winter here in the PNW These lenses will be sunny day in Florida lenses as far as I'm concerned.
> 2. No pleasing bokeh at F11.
> 
> ...


My biggest question is price - if they are price conscious then it makes complete sense for me. I would bet there are a number of photographers out there who want 800mm of reach, but don't have the the $13k US to make that a reality right now. If speed is the sacrifice needed to afford that magnification, I'd suspect some cost-conscious users would accept grainy images in exchange for getting that image at all.


----------



## chrisgibbs (Jul 6, 2020)

Cool design that harkens back to the old military field telescope. I can see more than a few photojournalists having one of these stashed in their grab-bags.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 6, 2020)

sanj said:


> We have to keep the quality expectations low. Then we will be happy. Build and IQ


These remind me of the EF-S 55-250 lenses, which have very good optical quality for an incredibly low price. They won't be the kind of lens you want to stand out in the rain with or slog through the jungle, but there would be little point of that anyway with an f11 lens. A great lens for parents shooting their kids' soccer games. Unfortunately, there is no magic solution that offers lightweight and fast long telephoto lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

tomri said:


> Looks like with the RF mount we only have a choice between unreasonably underspecced and insanely expensive.




...because doing the sweet spot in the middle where we all probably live today won't be very successful financially. Consider: just rebuilding EF portfolio of lenses in RF will not:

Bring all the EF faithful over to RF (they'll just adapt EF)
Bring new users to the RF platform
Allow Canon to build new price points
Make much hay over what Sony and Nikon are doing
So Canon has to be a spray hitter here and play to all fields:

Some crazy fast / industry first stuff
Some crazy tiny lenses for the 'mirrorless is all about being small' crowd
The odd staple f/2.8 zooms to bring in the pros
Clever innovations to show that the company isn't resting on its laurels (adaptors with control rings / filter slots, collapsible superteles, 1:2 macro as a standard feature in affordable primes, etc.)
It's a very wise strategy, IMHO. Take any other approach -- go all in on fast, all in on small, all in on cheap, etc. -- and too much of the future market would go begging. Canon's a huge company and needs to build an army that can fight on all fronts.

- A


----------



## chasingrealness (Jul 6, 2020)

Billct said:


> Not a lens to render smooth backgrounds tho for wildlife then.


A wildlife photographer I follow on YouTube recently did a review and you can honestly do pretty well at f/11


Billct said:


> Not a lens to render smooth backgrounds tho for wildlife then.


I wonder about this issue, too. There is a pretty good video about this by Duane Paton. He showed that in some circumstances you can still get nice out of focus backgrounds.


----------



## melgross (Jul 6, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Why do you think it is bad? I have the 800mm f/5.6 and it has the same minimum focus distance. It's rarely a problem in the real world.


Because he doesn’t know what long lenses do, and so comments negatively because the distance seems long to him.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jul 6, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Very interesting looking.. f11 at 800mm appeals to me more than it does at 600mm though. In the right conditions, such as African or Indian safaris, 800mm in a lens that small and light will be awesome!


Watch the 600mm come in at some insane price like $400 and the 800mm for $900


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 6, 2020)

These are going to be front heavy because the patents show no elements in the rear of the lens which means it is likely all the glass is in the movable front section. But I guess since they are fairly lightweight to begin with it won't be a huge deal.

I still would have preferred the 600 f/8 that was in the patent also in order to get better magnification and a 4.5m MFD at 840 f/11.
6m MFD is too long for me. I am often backing off to be within my 600 f/4's 4.5m MFD. 6m would work some of the time but it is a fairly big negative to me.

They are pretty slick looking in collapsed form...they are butt ugly in extended form.

They better be priced really aggresively or else I feel they are dead on the doorstep considering all the compromises.

I think the best native lens for EOS R5/R6 for birds is going to be RF 100-500 with TCs for the time being. 700/10 is a good middle ground and zoom flexibility is always a plus. Better build quality, better weather sealing, as compact as the 600DO for packing and L series IQ and AF.
Otherwise my preferred EOS R5/R6 lens for birds would be the adapted 400DOII with TCs for now.


----------



## tomri (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> ...because doing the sweet spot in the middle where we all probably live today won't be very successful financially. Consider: just rebuilding EF portfolio of lenses in RF will not:
> 
> Bring all the EF faithful over to RF (they'll just adapt EF)
> Bring new users to the RF platform
> ...


The smart person leans back and waits. That person likely has more cameras than he can use at any one time, and they are all good enough or better. While he waits, one camera company after the other goes out of business. Pity.


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 6, 2020)

melgross said:


> Because he doesn’t know what long lenses do, and so comments negatively because the distance seems long to him.


No it actually is a big negative and the reason so many 800L owners sold them and bought 600II lenses when it came out. You had IQ that matched the 800L when you shot the 600 at 840. You had 1.4x better magnification and at a more reasonable 4.5m MFD. You had more supported AF points and you had a lighter lens. The 800L was special for its time but once the 600II (and now the III) came along the 800L is an inferior option IMO unless you can scoop one up for a super cheap used deal. I wonder why Canon never made a 2nd version of it....hhmmmmm...


----------



## chasingrealness (Jul 6, 2020)

CJudge said:


> Some of the comments here suggesting that this lens will only appeal to amateurs remind me of statements in the past that smaller sensors could only appeal to amateurs. The best camera (and lens) is the one you have with you. Until now, the only people who could shoot 800mm focal lengths were the people who could afford the hefty price-tag, and those who were willing to shlep them around.
> 
> These lenses could very well start a mini-revolution in the field of telephoto shooting. It's opened the door to exponentially more people, and I think we'll all benefit from (and be impressed by) the images they create.


This is the energy this year needs more of.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> There is some kind of bump on the bottom. It's too built up to be a normal panel for switches, and buttons/switches wouldn't be clocked at that location for convenient use while shooting.
> 
> Good money that's a feature for a support.
> 
> ...


A foot might be an optional extra. F11 wouldn’t be enough for serious animal/bird photographers but if it were sharp it might be popular with beginners. It looks push pull so if there is no sealing it will be a dust magnet. I think it’s an interesting design choice by Canon. I’ve a 600 F4 II and it’s a whopping great lens. Not exactly something you take on holidays. A lot of airlines have a 7KG limit now for cabin luggage.


----------



## neurorx (Jul 6, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Watch the 600mm come in at some insane price like $400 and the 800mm for $900


Then that might be worth a purchase as they seem very limited in use.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> ...because doing the sweet spot in the middle where we all probably live today won't be very successful financially. Consider: just rebuilding EF portfolio of lenses in RF will not:
> 
> Bring all the EF faithful over to RF (they'll just adapt EF)
> Bring new users to the RF platform
> ...



100%, it's a great strategy. As someone who already had all the EF glass I've ever needed, one of my #1 priorities for getting the R5 is to use unique new RF glass I can't get on EF mount. The 28-70 F/2 is a huge reason I'm excited to pre-order the R5, that adds a whole stop of light to nighttime news work and is invaluable. If they pull off a 70-135 f/2 or 14-24 f/2, that will also be under heavy consideration for me.

And then on the other end of the spectrum, in my free time I've found myself feeling less inclined to lug 20 pounds of kit with me when spending time with family. That has given me a huge incentive to get a smaller, lighter kit than my 1DX2. This is a spot where the super compact RF 70-200 shines, too. I went to NYC in February and left my long glass at home since the 1DX2 was heavy enough already, just bringing the 24-70 and 50 1.8. In an ideal RF world, I'd have been able to bring the R5, 35 1.8, 24-70, 70-200 2.8, and probably still would have been less weight and taken up less space than the 1dx2 kit I had with me. I did really miss a lot of shots from leaving the 70-200 at home, but it just takes up so much space.

This is also an area where the 600mm f/11 definitely has its place. A 70-200 was already pushing it for me, but absolutely no chance I'd ever bring any current supertelephoto in that situation of walking around all day. But a compact collapsible 600 that weighs less than the tiny RF 70-200? That's a lens that would totally be worth the slight increase in weight on a vacation if you knew there were opportunities for long shots. Like in NYC, I saw the statue of liberty at a huge distance in broad daylight and probably couldn't have even gotten a shot at 200mm, but 600mm would have definitely given a unique, awesome landscape view of it. Most vacation activities are during the day anyway, so why worry about F/11.

I'm much more fascinated by these new, unique lenses than I am any standard replacement to my EF glass. Until the R1 comes out, I'm going to need my EF glass on my 1dx2 as a secondary camera anyway.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

melgross said:


> Because he doesn’t know what long lenses do, and so comments negatively because the distance seems long to him.




I hear you, but in fairness, some folks know exactly how they work but have a unique use-case that would warrant a desire for a shorter MFD.

If you shoot (i don't know) dragonflies or something, some folks recognize that modern long macro glass is super rarely made by the major manufacturers. They have learned to work with MFD constraints of some longer primes to serve as a sort of modern day refresh to the 180L macro.

So is it reasonable to want this in a crazy long supertele? Not for me. But I'm not everyone.

- A


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> These are going to be front heavy because the patents show no elements in the rear of the lens which means it is likely all the glass is in the movable front section. But I guess since they are fairly lightweight to begin with it won't be a huge deal.


How can the front section collapse over the rear section if it's full of glass? It would seem like a significant number of the elements would have to be contained in the smaller internal rear section. I don't know for sure but I don't understand how it would work otherwise. I suppose the lenses could collapse together as well.


----------



## [pod] (Jul 6, 2020)

Om... Looks strange. Not mine style.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I hear you, but in fairness, some folks know exactly how they work but have a unique use-case that would warrant a desire for a shorter MFD.
> 
> If you shoot (i don't know) dragonflies or something, some folks recognize that modern long macro glass is super rarely made by the major manufacturers. They have learned to work with MFD constraints of some longer primes to serve as a sort of modern day refresh to the 180L macro.
> 
> ...


You are quite right. Unfortunately, there are those who sit in the prison of their own confines and don't appreciate there is a wider world which has different vistas. If what you do is to sit in a hide or a stand and just shoot long distances, then mfd is immaterial. If you also shoot close-up, then mfd is important.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> How can the front section collapse over the rear section if it's full of glass? It would seem like a significant number of the elements would have to be contained in the smaller internal rear section. I don't know for sure but I don't understand how it would work otherwise. I suppose the lenses could collapse together as well.




Take a look at that pic again: the inner tube is not 50% of the lens. That's not a hood at the end, that's barrel up to the front element:




Length is listed as 281mm closed and 351mm extended. So the collapsibility of this lens is not a 50-50 sort of proposition -- it just saves you about 3 inches.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> You are quite right. Unfortunately, there are those who sit in the prison of their own confines and don't realise there is a wider world which has greater vistas.




Sure, but we've all been that guy when the thing we want is not the thing Canon offers us. 

Trust me, I know. 

- A


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

The Max magnification factors of 1.4x are comparable to the 600/800 big whites and better than the 1.2x of the 500 5.6L but many of us are accustomed to the stellar .31 that you get with the 100-400 II. 1.4 x is workable but you will definitely be sneaker zooming back if you are lucky enough to get close to some smaller creatures. You can shorten up MFD with extension tubes at the expense of infinity focus but it takes a long extension to make much of a difference at 600/800.

Thanks to some great sleuthing by AlanF it appears that the 100-400 II accomplishes the .31 max mag through an extreme reduction in actual focal length at MFD. That's sounds bad but it's a good thing in this case since mag factor is my real goal at MFD. The new 100-500 looks even better at a max mag of .33 so I expect it follows the same path as the 100-400 II which is also a good thing IMO.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Thanks to some great sleuthing by AlanF it appears that the 100-400 II accomplishes the .31 max mag through an extreme reduction in actual focal length at MFD. That's sounds bad but it's a good thing in this case since mag factor is my real goal at MFD. The new 100-500 looks even better at a max mag of .33 so I expect it follows the same path as the 100-400 II which is also a good thing IMO.




The EF 24-70 f/4L IS is *0.7x* max mag. A stellar feature few talk about. However, it's no sub for a macro lens -- the working distance is a mess and the lens barrel itself can shade out the light you need.

It's all a trade off, but one I'm glad to use. I'm just amazed Canon hasn't folded that into more FF standard zooms.

- A


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Take a look at that pic again: the inner tube is not 50% of the lens. That's not a hood at the end, that's barrel up to the front element:
> 
> View attachment 191152
> 
> ...


Yes, but for structural integrety I suspect you would need to leave a significant amount of the inner barrel inside the outer barrel even at max extension. Optical formulas and lens design aren't my strongest suits so I'm mostly asking rather than saying.


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 6, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> A foot might be an optional extra. F11 wouldn’t be enough for serious animal/bird photographers but if it were sharp it might be popular with beginners. It looks push pull so if there is no sealing it will be a dust magnet. I think it’s an interesting design choice by Canon. I’ve a 600 F4 II and it’s a whopping great lens. Not exactly something you take on holidays. A lot of airlines have a 7KG limit now for cabin luggage.


I think the foot will be included. I've seen Canon product shots before where the foot was missing. Not sure why they do that but I'm fairly certain these will come with a foot and a lens hood. The lens hoods already have a product number. If the lens hood is optional like non-L lenses in the past then Canon is surely cheap.

All N. American airlines have removed all weight limits from carry-on so I've found it easier to travel with heavier gear in recent years.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> I think the foot will be included. I've seen Canon product shots before where the foot was missing. Not sure why they do that but I'm fairly certain these will come with a foot and a lens hood. The lens hoods already have a product number. If the lens hood is optional like non-L lenses in the past then Canon is surely cheap.




Black/plasticky + STM + no red ring = I am not counting on a hood to be included.

Tripod foot I could only speculate the same.

- A

_(P.S. When is the last time we had a non-L / non-DO-branded lens come with a completely removable hood? Asking as today's trivia -- I don't know the answer myself.)_


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jul 6, 2020)

I think nobody will buy these in an instant...
Or is it just me? Cause they are so new and special, I want to see reviews first...
Does some body feel me?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> I think nobody will buy these in an instant...
> Or is it just me? Cause they are so new and special, I want to see reviews first...
> Does some body feel me?




Price will dictate the market response.

If that 800mm is sub $1k, people will snap it up -- warts and all.

If that 800mm is $2k, sure, folks will wait for reviews. They'll want to know it sings compared to (say) dropping a TC on a 100-400 / 100-500 lens.

- A

P.S. Completely speculating on price here with f/11 being a massive wildcard for market interest.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 6, 2020)

I returned the RF 24-240 due to poor performance at 24-40mm, but the performance from 50-240 was exceptional. This gives me great confidence in the IQ these f/11 primes are going to produce. These are not going to be soft, low contrast lenses.

I hope Canon makes L versions that do f8, too.


----------



## padam (Jul 6, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Foot, hood and 95mm filter is going to be expensive relative to the price for the 800.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t count on the 100-500 being weak at 500. The 100-400 II is superb at its longest focal length. On a 5DsR, I could never see any weakness at 400mm versus 100mm, at least at infinity.







__





Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II - Full Format Review / Test Report - Analysis


Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II - Full Format Review / Test Report




www.opticallimits.com





It is not weak per se, but there are very few zoom lenses that are strongest at the long end.
And of course the teleconverter comes on top of that.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 6, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Watch the 600mm come in at some insane price like $400 and the 800mm for $900


That's not only insane, it's delusional.


----------



## RBSfphoto (Jul 6, 2020)

this is a niche lens for a very specific consumer, I think it is a smart move if priced right it will give you something that a hobbyist cant get on a smart phone and an incentive to buy a real camera. For professionals and hobbyists with interest and a budget they can continue to buy the expensive long white lenses. When might a professional want one of these? a photojournalist in a warzone could get reach with a smallish, lightish lens, a fashion shooter looking for a particular look that is different than what everybody else is shooting? I have been pro for 30 years, the image that made me the most money was shot on a funky lens from the 1930's that was only sharp in one spot mounted on my sinar 4x5 with no electronics. it is a tool the right tool for some people the wrong tool for others. To decide it is not a "good" lens because it doesn't do what you want it to do is like saying a Lamborghini is a bad car cause it is hard to parallel park


----------



## unfocused (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> ...because doing the sweet spot in the middle where we all probably live today won't be very successful financially. Consider: just rebuilding EF portfolio of lenses in RF will not:
> 
> Bring all the EF faithful over to RF (they'll just adapt EF)
> Bring new users to the RF platform
> ...


I pretty much agree with your points, but adding this to rain on the parade: I think these lenses are pretty strong indicators that the R series is not ready for DSLR quality performance in terms of speed and autofocusing. I once again refer to the Canon Europe piece on DSLR vs. mirrorless (https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/future-of-dslrs/). I think these lenses may show that Canon does not yet feel they have a mirrorless camera that can justify Big White quality RF lenses. (In fact it may be impossible to get the same performance out of a mirrorless that Big White owners are used to from DSLRs). I know that will upset the "Mirrorless is the future" crowd, but people may just have to accept that both formats are here to stay and photographers have to choose which they prefer.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 6, 2020)

Andreasb said:


> As a bird photographer, with a 400 F4 DO II , 500 F5.6 PF and 600mm F4 lenses. I have absolutely NO interest in F11 lenses because of two things:
> 1. Shutter speed will be to low at F11, if you crank up ISO to 6400 you might get it up to be OK. As a reference I try to stay under ISO 400 and will in a very worst situation go up to ISO 800. We all know ISO performance has stalled with the sensors. The results will be too noisy images for me. I want faster shutter speeds for birds in flight, F11 wont cut it. F5.6 is on the border of being acceptable in this regard. I have to take off the Tele extender when to gets dark or in the winter here in the PNW These lenses will be sunny day in Florida lenses as far as I'm concerned.
> 2. No pleasing bokeh at F11.
> 
> These are consumer offerings, not for serious wildlife photographers, Safari? I doubt the weather sealing will hold up to it, Shorebirds in a distance? The atmospheric abberations will not be helpful at a distance no matter what lens. Morning shoot at Bosque sunrise? I'm having problems getting enough shutter speed with my F4 lenses.



To everyone saying these lenses are too limiting to be useful, I'd ask: who is buying superzoom bridge cameras? Someone must be. These lenses' maximum apertures compare favourably to that category. We don't yet know the price - I'd expect it to be reasonable, in which case this is aimed at people who want maximum reach regardless of the drawbacks (especially paired with teleconverters); if they aren't cheap, then there must be some X factor we're not yet aware of to make them enticing.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 6, 2020)

Super curious about these. I'm guessing it's going to follow the same reaction pattern as the EOS R when it was released.
-Initial uproar over the crippling specs
-Then people will get around to using them
-Hey these are pretty good after all


----------



## padam (Jul 6, 2020)

RBSfphoto said:


> When might a professional want one of these? a photojournalist in a warzone could get reach with a smallish, lightish lens.


The Nikon 500/5.6PF was out of stock for months because many press agencies placed big orders for it.
But the photojournalists generally use the EF 100-400 II lens (or now the RF 100-500) or the EF 70-200 2.8 III with a 2x teleconverter.
If they do use a prime, it is usually one of these three: 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Questions / thoughts:
> 
> 1) Retractable supertele primes: did _*anyone *_see that coming? I sure didn't. I presumed all the wow factor would be in getting the barrel diameter and weight down due to f/11.
> 
> ...


1) Actually, I did. I noticed that the patent showed no lenses in the 40% of the lens near the body, so I posted that it's possible that it collapses to save space when put away. But I did mention that the patent did not show any IS elements, so that it's possible that the final design was different.
2) 800mm / f11 = 73mm which is needed to get all of the center beam (only) without being clipped. To avoid a severe football shaped clipped bokeh ball as you go to the sides, you need more front glass to let those side angles in and so the outermost lens needs to be appropriately bigger than 73mm, depending on how much you allow the corner bokeh to become narrow footballs.
3:5) Don't really know 'bout those.

Hope that helps.


----------



## padam (Jul 6, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> 2) 800mm / f11 = 73mm which is needed to get all of the center beam (only) without being clipped. To avoid a severe football shaped clipped bokeh ball as you go to the sides, you need more front glass to let those side angles in and so the outermost lens needs to be appropriately bigger than 73mm, depending on how much you allow the corner bokeh to become narrow footballs.


It can be seen on the pictures that the 600/11 has a smaller front element than the filter thread, I guess the 800/11 is also similar, it probably has to do with how the DO element is mounted inside the lens.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 6, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Watch the 600mm come in at some insane price like $400 and the 800mm for $900


That’s the defining point with these I think. If they’re super cheap, then they’ll be a hit. If they’re like £1200 or something stupid then I think I’ll pass..


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> Super curious about these. I'm guessing it's going to follow the same reaction pattern as the EOS R when it was released.
> -Initial uproar over the crippling specs
> -Then people will get around to using them
> -Hey these are pretty good after all




You might be right, but perhaps it's a matter of expectation fulfillment. 

This is a bit different than a 'presumably nerfed feature set' body in which the body has a lineage it came from, a price point to uphold and a sort of 'feature-set-trajectory' we expect it to build on. In short, expectations of the next gen of a body tend to let us down when the true specs drop. (Thankfully, the R5 is shaping up to be the massive, massive exception to that rule. )

But a modern (non-mirror) f/11 autofocusing prime has no lineage, no like-for-like predecessor (I would not compare to 2x-ing a $2k sealed beefier build 100-400L II for instance) -- so the presumed soft specs aren't really nerfing here. An f/11 prime is a deliberate attempt to make something smaller, lighter and affordable. It's a new creature with new expectations.

- A


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 6, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Thanks to some great sleuthing by AlanF it appears that the 100-400 II accomplishes the .31 max mag through an extreme reduction in actual focal length at MFD. That's sounds bad but it's a good thing in this case since mag factor is my real goal at MFD. The new 100-500 looks even better at a max mag of .33 so I expect it follows the same path as the 100-400 II which is also a good thing IMO.


I don't know AlanF but I posted the calculation on dpreview a long time ago. The actual focal length of the 100-400L II at '400 mm' and MFD is just 177 mm. As you say, it's not a big problem because magnification is the main issue - but it does mean (a) you have to get closer to the subject than you would with a true 400 mm lens, and (b) background blur is proportional to focal length so subject separation is not as good. In practice that is only noticeable when the background is busy and not far behind the subject, such as a dragonfly on vegetation.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 6, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I think these lenses are pretty strong indicators that the R series is not ready for DSLR quality performance in terms of speed and autofocusing. I once again refer to the Canon Europe piece on DSLR vs. mirrorless (https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/future-of-dslrs/). I think these lenses may show that Canon does not yet feel they have a mirrorless camera that can justify Big White quality RF lenses. (In fact it may be impossible to get the same performance out of a mirrorless that Big White owners are used to from DSLRs). I know that will upset the "Mirrorless is the future" crowd, but people may just have to accept that both formats are here to stay and photographers have to choose which they prefer.



I don't think that's the case at all. The 1DX3's live view focus/shooting system is absolutely up to par with this, and I know countless other photojournalists using it that are 100% sold on its live view features, most of which have said the liveview focus and tracking has been superior to even the OVF. They've spent a lot of time holding the 1DX3 in front of their face to use the back LCD. There's not a person I know who has used the 1DX3's live view mode and thinks it's not up to the task, the 20 FPS silent shooting has been blowing people away and does not have any delay in the live preview or issues with tracking.

It's almost entirely certain that the R5 will at a minimum meet the 1DX3's DPAF features and will easily surpass it since it has an EVF.

The difference is, big whites are already massive. If you're going to use the 400mm f/2.8L IS III on an EOS R5, absolutely no one is going to care about the tiny addition of an adapter to use that lens. Canon will 100% sell more big white lenses by selling to both the EF and RF audience, it doesn't make sense for them to limit their supertelephoto lenses to just an RF mount yet while the flagship 1D-series remains in EF mount. I don't expect any RF white supertelephotos until the EOS-R1.

To add to that, it looks like the RF extenders may very well be able to be used with EF adapters + an EF extender, which would give even more functionality to using an EF supertelephoto on an RF mount, since you could easily stack extenders with full autofocus up to F/11.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> I don't know AlanF but I posted the calculation on dpreview a long time ago. The actual focal length of the 100-400L II at '400 mm' and MFD is just 173 mm. As you say, it's not a big problem because magnification is the main issue - but it does mean (a) you have to get closer to the subject than you would with a true 400 mm lens, and (b) background blur is proportional to focal length so subject separation is not as good. In practice that is only noticeable when the background is busy and not far behind the subject, such as a dragonfly on vegetation.


Sorry, didn't mean to redirect any credit away from you if you are the originator of this information. I expect AlanF, a frequent poster on this site, would have credited you if he was following your lead. My error if I neglected to do that as well.


----------



## jurci2 (Jul 6, 2020)

This really looks like a line-up in the range of the Minolta AF 500mm /f8.0 Mirror reflex: Lightweight, small , still AF and - considering its limitations very flexible to carry along.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, but we've all been that guy when the thing we want is not the thing Canon offers us.
> 
> Trust me, I know.
> 
> - A


It's being told by someone who doesn't know what you need that you have got it wrong and you don't know


padam said:


> The Nikon 500/5.6PF was out of stock for months because many press agencies placed big orders for it.
> But the photojournalists generally use the EF 100-400 II lens (or now the RF 100-500) or the EF 70-200 2.8 III with a 2x teleconverter.
> If they do use a prime, it is usually one of these three: 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2


I use both the 500PF and the 100-400mm II. I am surprised that photojournalists use the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2 instead as I find them not much use for telephoto work. The 500PF image thread on Fred Miranda is already 186 pages long and the lens has been out for less than 2 years.


----------



## slclick (Jul 6, 2020)

unfocused said:


> That's not only insane, it's delusional.


I agree, you will not get Canon optics at mirror lens prices.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 6, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to redirect any credit away from you if you are the originator of this information. I expect AlanF, a frequent poster on this site, would have credited you if he was following your lead. My error if I neglected to do that as well.


AlanF could easily have performed the same calculation independently, owing no credit to me. I was just keen to state that I had done the calculation myself, not copied something (which might not have been correct!) from another poster. The forums are full of copied/quoted stuff which is incorrect, as I'm sure you know! Sorry if I gave a different impression.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 6, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> The 800mm f/5.6 also has the same .14x magnification as well as the same 6m minimum focus distance. Do you find that you wind up using the teleconverter a lot to get more magnification?
> I wonder if these lenses will be usable with the teleconverters given the aperture.
> Key differences: the 800mm f/5.6 weighs 3.5 times more than this lens at 4490g and costs $12,999 new.


Yep, and the hood is almost another pound. The 800 f/5.6 is an awesome lens, but portability is not its strong point. I bought a Nikon p1000 to get similar reach with portability and will likely buy the new 800 DO for something in the middle if the IQ is good. BTW, the P1000 is equipped with an amazing lens given the constraints.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> It's almost entirely certain that the R5 will at a minimum meet the 1DX3's DPAF features and will easily surpass it since it has an EVF.




Agree on the EVF being a huge deal, esp. for those not hammering their shutter at 20 fps and those who might avail themselves of MF assist tools with adapted lenses, large aperture glass, etc. Doing that with the camera up to your eye (rather than doing the whole 'iPad photography ergonomics' of working of the LCD 12" from your face) is a really big deal.

But I don't think it's a given that the R5 will match the 1D3 DPAF features/performance:

1) Canon tends to withhold tasty AF 1-series features from 5-series cameras (which is what I consider the R5 to be)

2) The sensor res is much higher for the R5, and I wonder if whatever pixel level lifting that camera requires may (somehow) diminish its AF throughput, responsiveness, predictiveness in servo, etc. 

I'm not an AF whiz and I don't want to rain on everyone's parade. As a prospective R5 buyer, I want it to rock something fierce. But it would not stun me at all if the 1DX3 was offered a few more gears (even with the mirror up) than what the R5 gets.

- A


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 6, 2020)

I think that it's great that Canon is coming out with both of these lenses. I assume the price will be very reasonable, but I'm not sure enough to guess what it'll be. It'll probably get a lot of new people to buy them which will be great for Canon, and us, whether we get one or not. 

My concerns are these: 1) The 0.14x max magnification at 6m (for the 800mm f11) is not good for close-up shots at high magnification. I happen to really take a lot of that type of photos, so I might(?) be better off with the RF 100-500 L IS - And I do acknowledge that many here might only use this for far off shots of birds or wildlife - but that's just not me. Question: I've seen several posts in this thread that mention the minimum focus distance and max magnification of the RF 100-500, but I haven't seen this posted anywhere. So can anyone tell me what's actually posted for it (especially at 500mm)?

2) I worry that the DO element may not give as good for contrast or flare resistance as Canon people on this thread have come to expect. That's OK at a lower price, but I'm going to wait to see the IQ of these lenses before assuming they'll be great - I do hope (very much) that they'll be great and my worries will be unfounded. But I expect that they'll be 'good enough' at the price and light weight & short packed size to be quite worth buying for all of those that do buy them.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> AlanF could easily have performed the same calculation independently, owing no credit to me. I was just keen to state that I had done the calculation myself, not copied something (which might not have been correct!) from another poster. The forums are full of copied/quoted stuff which is incorrect, as I'm sure you know! Sorry if I gave a different impression.


No worries. I can't recall exactly but I think Alan might have mentioned that he had seen it somewhere and then calculated it for himself as well. I think he works in a field where assigning appropriate credit is important so I was just trying to make sure I didn't create any issues by quoting him inaccurately. Thanks to both of you for your independent corroboration.  

My goal was to just to bring the relevant Max Mag factors together so users could compare them. I probably should have just done a chart and left out the editorializing.


----------



## padam (Jul 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I am surprised that photojournalists use the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2 instead as I find them not much use for telephoto work. The 500PF image thread on Fred Miranda is already 186 pages long and the lens has been out for less than 2 years.


As I wrote: IF photojournalists use a prime lens (which is not that common, they use zooms) it is not a telephoto.
The 1DX II or D5 and something from the holy trinity is used for most of what's attached to the news articles, the 24-105 is also still quite popular.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> I don't know AlanF but I posted the calculation on dpreview a long time ago. The actual focal length of the 100-400L II at '400 mm' and MFD is just 177 mm. As you say, it's not a big problem because magnification is the main issue - but it does mean (a) you have to get closer to the subject than you would with a true 400 mm lens, and (b) background blur is proportional to focal length so subject separation is not as good. In practice that is only noticeable when the background is busy and not far behind the subject, such as a dragonfly on vegetation.


I like checking facts. It seems that it wasn't you who posted that the focal length is 177mm but it was lemmings51 in https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62805330 and you then replied to it in the next post https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62807586 Is that correct or had you made an earlier posting?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Question: I've seen several posts in this thread that mention the minimum focus distance and max magnification of the RF 100-500, but I haven't seen this posted anywhere. So can anyone tell me what's actually posted for it (especially at 500mm)?




This is all I have seen from the 100-500 spec thread:

_Minimum focusing distance 0.9m (wide end)_
_Maximum magnification 0.33 (telephoto)_
- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

padam said:


> As I wrote: IF photojournalists use a prime lens (which is not that common, they use zooms) it is not a telephoto.
> The 1DX II or D5 and something from the holy trinity is used for most of what's attached to the news articles, the 24-105 is also still quite popular.




PJs' assignments run the gamut, though, don't they? Some are out on a conflict/war assignment in some faraway land, while others are buried in a highly repeatable scrum every day with elected officials. 

It's hard for me to peg what they do / don't tend to use because, well, just like many of us, what they are trying to capture might be quite different than what we expect.

- A


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> This is all I have seen from the 100-500 spec thread:
> 
> _Minimum focusing distance 0.9m (wide end)_
> _Maximum magnification 0.33 (telephoto)_
> - A


Thanks for the feedback. 0.33x max mag. at 500mm is indeed a pretty good amount. I happen to really like to take long telephoto shots at the min. focus so that I get flowers & insects in sharp focus and the OOF background is smeared so big it's just a gradient between a few colors & shades. That combination is just so beautiful (and pretty easy to do, too!) 

And for more 'normal' long tele use, likes landscapes, perched birds and BIF, the zoom will really come in handy! And I'll be interested in the review of using it with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters (and comparing it to taking a crop and upsampling the result?). Maybe with the converter you can get a really good shot at 700mm or 1000mm?


----------



## efmshark (Jul 6, 2020)

Wouldn't these be past the refraction limit even at maximum aperture with the pixel density on EOS R5?


----------



## padam (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> PJs' assignments run the gamut, though, don't they? Some are out on a conflict/war assignment in some faraway land, while others are buried in a highly repeatable scrum every day with elected officials.
> 
> It's hard for me to peg what they do / don't tend to use because, well, just like many of us, what they are trying to capture might be quite different than what we expect.
> 
> - A


The equipment is actually seems to be the same (or very similar) for both.
Mostly a 1DX II (or maybe one on each side) with one of the f/2.8 zoom lenses (or the 24-105 f/4 and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 come after that in terms of popularity).
The second most popular camera is the D5, but it is far less common. Then it is 5D III or 5D IV, etc.

They have started using Sony A9 or similar smaller mirrorless cameras in some places (some even use Leica M cameras), but it is few and far between at this stage. And yes, there are press pictures taken with smartphones as well, because timing is everything.

I guess it is brand-related, so it will be interesting to see if the EOS R5 is going to be utilised in these types of environments instead of the 1DX II
As all things considered, it is probably nowhere near as tough as a 1DX
Same thing with lenses like the RF 70-200 f/2.8, which also can't take as much beating as an EF 70-200 f/2.8 III either, there is a price to be paid for the much better portability and even better optical performance (besides the price itself).


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I like checking facts. It seems that it wasn't you who posted that the focal length is 177mm but it was lemmings51 in https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62805330 and you then replied to it in the next post https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62807586 Is that correct or had you made an earlier posting?


March 2015  - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55435473

But don't worry about it Alan, it's just a calculation which anybody could do for themselves.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> March 2015  - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55435473
> 
> But don't worry about it Alan, it's just a calculation which anybody could do for themselves.


Thanks for the clarification. You might have missed my actual post, I actually went out and measured it for myself, from the length of a line on a chart I stuck on a wall and the length of its image on the sensor as I check manufacturers claims as well.


AlanF said:


> The geek came out and I measured the focus breathing. The minimum focus distance of mine on a 5DSR set at 400mm is 970mm, close to the specs of 975 with a magnification of 0.312x, the same really as the specs of 0.31. The calculated focal length is 178mm, instead of 400mm, at the mfd. Putting the camera (sensor) at 1.6m from target, the focal length is 228mm. (magnification 0.16x)


----------



## Drakester1791 (Jul 6, 2020)

Is there any benefit of the 800mm f/11 over a 100-400 IS II with 2x TC, other than physical size? I’m presuming the 100-400 would win in terms of IQ due to the L glass?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

Drakester1791 said:


> Is there any benefit of the 800mm f/11 over a 100-400 IS II with 2x TC, other than physical size? I’m presuming the 100-400 would win in terms of IQ due to the L glass?


The prime should be significantly sharper as it is prime rather than a zoom combined with the fact that 2xTCs degrade images (MTF50) by about 20% or so.


----------



## chris_overseas (Jul 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Maybe not a problem in your world, but it is in mine. I use the same lens for birds and butterflies and dragonflies. My 100-400 and hopefully the new 100-500 as well get me down to 1m mfd and as long as 700-1000mm for reach with a TC. And I also use a 500mm PF with a mfd of 3m, and will take TCs at the same mfd. When you go out on a nature hike with one lens (and I admit that would not be a 800/5.6), you need both decent mfd as well as reach.



I agree the 800mm is a hopeless lens for insects. Lenses like the 100-400 and 70-200 are not much use for insects either in my experience, though work OK in a pinch. The 100mm macro on the other hand is perfect. For _small_ birds that are close I agree the 800mm can be problematic and a shorter focal length (e.g. 100-400) usually ends up being a much better choice there. Sadly there is no one-size-fits all.

As for hiking with the 800mm... it certainly has some heft, but I did lug it on a 20km+ day trip in Patagonia once. Nearly killed me and I didn't get any decent shots with it that day, but if nothing else it certainly was good exercise!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> I agree the 800mm is a hopeless lens for insects. Lenses like the 100-400 and 70-200 are not much use for insects either in my experience, though work OK in a pinch. The 100mm macro on the other hand is perfect. For _small_ birds that are close I agree the 800mm can be problematic and a shorter focal length (e.g. 100-400) usually ends up being a much better choice there. Sadly there is no one-size-fits all.
> 
> As for hiking with the 800mm... it certainly has some heft, but I did lug it on a 20km+ day trip in Patagonia once. Nearly killed me and I didn't get any decent shots with it that day, but if nothing else it certainly was good exercise!


100-400mm II not much good for insects? Take a look here for a start https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 6, 2020)

padam said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The EF 100-400 II @ 400mm on the 5DsR was so sharp at infinity it made my eyes bleed, even handheld. If the 100-500 IQ @ 500 matches or exceeds the 100-400 II IQ at 400mm, then it's going to rock. Given the performance thus far of the RF L lenses, I see no reason why this would not be the case.


----------



## geffy (Jul 7, 2020)

I doubt the 600 will be much bettet than my tamron 600 zoom at f11


----------



## mppix (Jul 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> ...because doing the sweet spot in the middle where we all probably live today won't be very successful financially. Consider: just rebuilding EF portfolio of lenses in RF will not:
> 
> Bring all the EF faithful over to RF (they'll just adapt EF)
> Bring new users to the RF platform
> ...



I would add that the "middle ground" is already there - EF lensws work perfectly fine on RF cams


----------



## SteveC (Jul 7, 2020)

mppix said:


> I would add that the "middle ground" is already there - EF lensws work perfectly fine on RF cams



With--oh, the humanity!!!!--an adapter, of course. (Yes, I am being sarcastic.)


----------



## unfocused (Jul 7, 2020)

geffy said:


> I doubt the 600 will be much better than my tamron 600 zoom at f11


True. But it will weigh half as much.


----------



## dcm (Jul 7, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> I think the foot will be included. I've seen Canon product shots before where the foot was missing. Not sure why they do that but I'm fairly certain these will come with a foot and a lens hood. The lens hoods already have a product number. If the lens hood is optional like non-L lenses in the past then Canon is surely cheap.
> 
> All N. American airlines have removed all weight limits from carry-on so I've found it easier to travel with heavier gear in recent years.



Reminds me a bit of the Mount Adapter EF-EOSM (left) that comes with a separate foot (center) that screws into the adapter with a couple of prongs to prevent twisting to give a larger surface to mount to an arca plate (right). 




And when fully assembled. 




This gives a little bit of clearance needed for the body and lenses, like the other standard Canon feet provide. The foot could easily be included with the lens like it is with the adapter. I don't use it much any more since since the only EF lenses I tend to adapte have their own feet. 

Or maybe they eliminated the foot and you can attach the plate directly.


----------



## geffy (Jul 7, 2020)

unfocused said:


> True. But it will weigh half as much.


true but its already paid for and any purchase nowadays is difficult to justify, the R was bought for peanuts


----------



## m1mm1m (Jul 7, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> Not at all....the 100-400 & 1.4x vs the 600 F4 is no contest. The 600 gives professional-tier images. The 100-400 without a TC gives very good images, with some degradation with a 1.4. There's nothing wrong with the 100-400 but to say that the lenses announced here are going to be within even shouting distance of the 600 f4 (or whatever the R variant becomes) is just not realistic.



I own the 600 F4 II and the 100-400 II..... IQ is indistinguishable without the TC.....


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

geffy said:


> I doubt the 600 will be much bettet than my tamron 600 zoom at f11




Depends on what you value. Compared to the Tamron, this new 600 prime will:

Be 60-70mm shorter in your bag
Be 600g lighter
Not require an EF adaptor
Presumably more reliably focus with first party AF (a very small issue at these apertures, but still)
Use a more common 82mm filter
Might be truer to actual 600mm FL (I believe TDP said the G2 150-600 seemed more like 570mm than a true 600mm)
...but I'm not offering that laundry list as a vote of 'the Canon is better'. It can't zoom, after all. Just saying YMMV depending on what you value.

- A


----------



## geffy (Jul 7, 2020)

" Depends on what you value. Compared to the Tamron, this new 600 prime will........"
i have an rx10 with the 600 equivalent and it is sharp but my old 600 l lens never leaves the house, seriously the sony is shockingly good and takes most of my outdoors travelling, there is the problem of distant detail and sensor size so the L wall always win but might not be there as its a behemoth, the tamron might be there but the sony seems to always deliver and its f4 though the bokeh is f11


----------



## Jethro (Jul 7, 2020)

I'll be in the 'wait and read the detailed reviews' crowd, but assuming the price is 'reasonable', I'm thinking an IS lens like one of these would fit very nicely on my EOS R.


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 7, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I pretty much agree with your points, but adding this to rain on the parade: I think these lenses are pretty strong indicators that the R series is not ready for DSLR quality performance in terms of speed and autofocusing. I once again refer to the Canon Europe piece on DSLR vs. mirrorless (https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/future-of-dslrs/). I think these lenses may show that Canon does not yet feel they have a mirrorless camera that can justify Big White quality RF lenses. (In fact it may be impossible to get the same performance out of a mirrorless that Big White owners are used to from DSLRs). I know that will upset the "Mirrorless is the future" crowd, but people may just have to accept that both formats are here to stay and photographers have to choose which they prefer.


Except for the fact that my A9 from 2017 leaves the 1DXIII in its rear view mirror when it comes to challenging AF situations. Even the 1DXIII LV leaves the 1DXIII OVF AF in the dust. MILCs have all the potential to vastly outperform the best DSLRs. Only the Nikon D5/D6 can hold a candle to the A9 and 1DXIII LV.

Sure Canon may still not have their s**t together with MILC AF but the 1DXIII LV seems to dispute that. I don't think these f/11 lenses have any indication of AF performance....in fact the fact that they have a f/11 lens compatible with a 2xTC for an f/22 lens that supposedly can still AF actually shows how much better MILC AF can be.


----------



## geffy (Jul 7, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> The EF 100-400 II @ 400mm on the 5DsR was so sharp at infinity it made my eyes bleed, even handheld. If the 100-500 IQ @ 500 matches or exceeds the 100-400 II IQ at 400mm, then it's going to rock. Given the performance thus far of the RF L lenses, I see no reason why this would not be the case.


I think this may be the sleeper lens after the amazement at the little blacks in the long run the 500 L zoom may prove just to be better to own as the others disappoint after the wow moment


----------



## tarjei99 (Jul 7, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> No it actually is a big negative and the reason so many 800L owners sold them and bought 600II lenses when it came out. You had IQ that matched the 800L when you shot the 600 at 840. You had 1.4x better magnification and at a more reasonable 4.5m MFD. You had more supported AF points and you had a lighter lens. The 800L was special for its time but once the 600II (and now the III) came along the 800L is an inferior option IMO unless you can scoop one up for a super cheap used deal. I wonder why Canon never made a 2nd version of it....hhmmmmm...




If my memory serves me right the 800 was the first of the "II" family of long teles. Since there were no existing 800mm, it didn't get the "II" and that makes it look older than it is.


----------



## tarjei99 (Jul 7, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I pretty much agree with your points, but adding this to rain on the parade: I think these lenses are pretty strong indicators that the R series is not ready for DSLR quality performance in terms of speed and autofocusing. I once again refer to the Canon Europe piece on DSLR vs. mirrorless (https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/future-of-dslrs/). I think these lenses may show that Canon does not yet feel they have a mirrorless camera that can justify Big White quality RF lenses. (In fact it may be impossible to get the same performance out of a mirrorless that Big White owners are used to from DSLRs). I know that will upset the "Mirrorless is the future" crowd, but people may just have to accept that both formats are here to stay and photographers have to choose which they prefer.



I think Canon are hedging their bets. They can talk nice about the mirrorless being the future. They are protecting their EF lenses as well in case the market does not shift as expected.

I don't think the big whites sell as well as people like to think. I suspect that the xxx-600mm zooms have largely taken over. 200-500mm for Nikon. So I expect that it takes time to recuperate the cost of these lenses.

In the beginner segment, where is the cameras that will take over the xxxD and xxD spots? I think the beginners and low end so far think that mirrorless does not look professional. And they want a camera that looks professional and is reasonably priced.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 7, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> I agree the 800mm is a hopeless lens for insects. Lenses like the 100-400 and 70-200 are not much use for insects either in my experience, though work OK in a pinch. The 100mm macro on the other hand is perfect. For _small_ birds that are close I agree the 800mm can be problematic and a shorter focal length (e.g. 100-400) usually ends up being a much better choice there. Sadly there is no one-size-fits all.
> 
> As for hiking with the 800mm... it certainly has some heft, but I did lug it on a 20km+ day trip in Patagonia once. Nearly killed me and I didn't get any decent shots with it that day, but if nothing else it certainly was good exercise!


I admire you hiking with an 800mm. I couldn’t even contemplate it. I have a 600mm F4 II and it’s a bit like an aircraft carrier. I need to bring a sturdy tripod and gimbal head. You end up going with so much weight. I have hand held it in safari but it takes its toll. 
I don’t mind the 100-400 at all for insects. Of course not as good as a dedicated macro but not bad. It’s a fairly flexible lens. I would have liked Canon to do a good 150-600mm EF lens but the EF era is gone.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2020)

geffy said:


> " Depends on what you value. Compared to the Tamron, this new 600 prime will........"
> i have an rx10 with the 600 equivalent and it is sharp but my old 600 l lens never leaves the house, seriously the sony is shockingly good and takes most of my outdoors travelling, there is the problem of distant detail and sensor size so the L wall always win but might not be there as its a behemoth, the tamron might be there but the sony seems to always deliver and its f4 though the bokeh is f11


The RX10iv is an amazing piece of kit. Mine is tack sharp from 24-600mm, and the AF is remarkable. I use it for casual travel or instead of a shorter telephoto lens on trips to accompany my DSLRs plus lightweight telephotos. To put noise levels, aperture and iso into perspective, the Riv entance pupil diameter (f/4 for 220mm focal length) is 55mm, the same as that for the 600mm f/11, and so lets in the same amount of light to cover its sensor as does the 600mm on FF. They have the same demands for iso!


----------



## amorse (Jul 7, 2020)

amorse said:


> I know this forum has discussed it at length, but my thoughts are that the f/11 sacrifice is manageable considering how little light is needed to focus using these bodies (compared to a DSLR anyway). I think if you are a full frame user, the only other way to get 800mm of magnification (regardless of f/value) is either spend A LOT of money, or use a teleconverter on a somewhat expensive lens and give up autofocus and IQ (in many instances). Or, get a crop sensor camera or M4/3 with a bigger lens.
> 
> For me, I see this as a sign that Canon is trying to make full frame more accessible to budget full frame buyers. There could be any number of reasons why Canon would do that. Maybe because Canon sees consumers moving up-market to full frame due to competition of smart phones at the lower end, or Canon sees an opportunity to squeeze out smaller sensor manufacturers in m4/3 or aps-c, or maybe they just want to get out of producing smaller sensors and need a way to keep price sensitive buyers in the Canon ecosystem.
> 
> ...


Ok, if the prices listed here are legit, then I definitely think the objective in making these was to make magnification cheap on full frame, and aperture was the real cost:

https://www.canonnews.com/the-canon...es-have-leaked-supertelephotos-for-the-masses


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

Price just was pushed out: £699 for the 600mm and £929 for the 800mm.

No dollar figure yet, but if you assume the normal windage between GBP and USD -- these will be very affordable lenses. Wow.

- A


----------



## Joules (Jul 7, 2020)

For those in disbelief, the source:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280424189313331200
Canon in attack mode is quite a sight to behold.


----------



## infared (Jul 7, 2020)

peters said:


> That weight and size is realy amazing


...small...like the aperture opening


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Price just was pushed out: £699 for the 600mm and £929 for the 800mm.
> 
> No dollar figure yet, but if you assume the normal windage between GBP and USD -- these will be very affordable lenses. Wow.
> 
> - A


At those prices they are impulse buys for those who have cash rattling around.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

I was expecting low cost, but not this low. These lenses are being priced like they are (supertele) pancakes -- everyone may add one of these to their kit.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

AlanF said:


> At those prices they are impulse buys for those who have cash rattling around.




You beat me to it, Alan.

- A


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2020)

Joules said:


> For those in disbelief, the source:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280424189313331200
> Canon in attack mode is quite a sight to behold.


Thanks Joules. £2899 for the 100-500mm is a bit steep. The excellent Sony 200-600mm is only £1699.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 7, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Thanks Joules. £2899 for the 100-500mm is a bit steep. The excellent Sony 200-600mm is only £1699.



Also the EF 100-400 II can be had for £1200 on grey market. Very steep indeed. Ok, the Sony is 1kg heavier but it is a lens i would be happy to buy a Sony camera for. Pair it with a cheap A6000 and you already have a very good wildlife kit.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Also the EF 100-400 II can be had for £1200 on grey market. Very steep indeed. Ok, the Sony is 1kg heavier but it is a lens i would be happy to buy a Sony camera for. Pair it with a cheap A6000 and you already have a very good wildlife kit.




Nikon the same with the 200-500 f/5.6 VR.

I guess Canon is happy to throw the f/11 superteles at the budget market and keep the 100-500 at a relatively premium price (similar to an f/2.8 zoom).

- A


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Canon should sell an ocular (hopefully it is the right term) to make these interesting for hobby astronomers and bird spotters as telescope with additional usage on cameras. The ocular should accept a battery for the IS. Maybe in the pipe because Canon produces binoculars with IS ...


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 7, 2020)

DO prices are exactly what I hoped they would be considering the f/11 and STM motors etc. I saw some people talking about $2K or even one guy saying he'd be happy if they were under $2700....I thought $1000 or less would be the only thing that made sense.

At these prices I would certainly pick up the 800DO just to try it.

The 100-500 price is way too high compared to the Sony 200-600. I could have accepted it being more than the 200-600 but it should have been more in line with 100-400II price of $2200. Other than the compact packing size and lower weight, the Sony lens has 600/6.3 vs 500/7.1, internal zoom (pros and cons but I love it), excellent IQ (sometimes I can't tell the images apart from my 600/4), takes a 1.4TC well (100-500 likely will also), fast AF (100-500 likely will also).


----------



## Daner (Jul 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> These lenses scream of amateur photog on safari...



Been there, done that, had a lot of fun!


----------



## Daner (Jul 7, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> I've been trying to keep an open mind about these, but I'll almost certainly have a 100-500 and a 1.4x which gives me 700 mm at f/10 in a lens which is just a few mm longer than the 600/11 DO when retracted and _much _shorter than the 800. I also get (with the 1.4x) around three times the maximum magnification for butterflies, snakes etc., and I won't need to buy any new filters! Or indeed a lens hood. The only disadvantage I will have is weight but even that is not a huge difference vs the 800.



My plan as well, but I see the value of these lenses for those who are fair-weather, good light shooters. I suspect that pairing them with the RP will provide a better combination of reach and IQ than anything else at a comparable price point.


----------



## Daner (Jul 7, 2020)

scyrene said:


> To everyone saying these lenses are too limiting to be useful, I'd ask: who is buying superzoom bridge cameras? Someone must be. These lenses' maximum apertures compare favourably to that category. We don't yet know the price - I'd expect it to be reasonable, in which case this is aimed at people who want maximum reach regardless of the drawbacks (especially paired with teleconverters); if they aren't cheap, then there must be some X factor we're not yet aware of to make them enticing.



I know several people who are currently happy with the images that they are getting from their superzoom bridge cameras. If/when they develop the desire to explore options that can give them greater resolution and image quality the jump to one of these with an RP and a 24-240 will be much more reasonable from a price/weight/size perspective than most other ILCs.


----------



## Zakiff (Jul 7, 2020)

100-500mm L is a bit steep but I think its comparable to Sony 100-400mm GM lens which is £2500..
Sony 200-600mm is cheaper but its not a GM lens.
Same goes to Nikon 200-500mm.


----------



## djack41 (Jul 7, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Not in the least considering how slow they are.


It is amazing that Canon is providing us such creative options. Modern cameras and post software allow us to shoot at much higher ISOs. When I need portability, shooting at F11 would not be a deal breaker.


----------



## padam (Jul 7, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> The 100-500 price is way too high compared to the Sony 200-600. I could have accepted it being more than the 200-600 but it should have been more in line with 100-400II price of $2200. Other than the compact packing size and lower weight, the Sony lens has 600/6.3 vs 500/7.1, internal zoom (pros and cons but I love it), excellent IQ (sometimes I can't tell the images apart from my 600/4), takes a 1.4TC well (100-500 likely will also), fast AF (100-500 likely will also).


It's what I expected compared to the 100-400 GM, which also has the much better MFD over the 200-600, Canon may have decided to combine as much as it could from the two (best overall range, minimum focusing distance and overall sharpness with the least weight and size)
And yes the EF 100-400 II can be bought for half as much as the RF 100-500 and it is still also great.


----------



## Fischer (Jul 7, 2020)

m1mm1m said:


> Is the beginning of the end of the Big White?
> 
> I know since the 100-400 came out with it's excellent IQ and IS and good pairing with the 1.4x...... my 600 has seen little use... Specially given the cropability of the 5DSR.. This lens gives me a usable "effective" 100-800 range....
> 
> ...


100-400 is an amazing lens for sure. And a true beast on the 5DS/R. That's why I worry that the new 100-500 will not be able to match it (due to the same lack of wide open apertures).


----------



## Fischer (Jul 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> This doesn't end/replace the superwhites. Not at all. This is reach for the masses without needing a loan or teleconverter to get it. This is Canon listening to its users, and we should applaud it, IMHO.
> 
> I think RF superwhites will eventually happen. They kind of have to.
> 
> ...


I can see some people - like myself - keeping their old white primes and supplementing with one of these (if flare and bokeh works out). Makes the transition much more affordable.


----------



## londonxt (Jul 7, 2020)

I actually like extreme zooms for Landscapes (inc city-scapes) you can really pick out dramatic points of interest with them, cropping is too limited with a 35 or 50mm and you just cant replicate that artistic compression of a zoom. My 100mm prime just didnt make enough of a difference compared to say the look of a 85mm in such situations, but just not worth investing in a heavy quality longer zoom for that sort of occasional use though and weight has ultimately really made me reasses my hardware recently most of my landscape stuff if during day hikes or longer so a massive lens was always a no-no. I used to own a Sigma 300 f5.6 zoom aeons ago when they used to be bundled with Canon kits (by Dixons probably), recall getting some decent airshow shots on slow slide film on a bright sunny day, I could imagine with modern sensor ISO abilities, the new in-camera image stablisation these would work nicely as an occasionaly hand-held landscape lens along with casual event photography like air shows where you can practise subject tracking.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 7, 2020)

These lenses are so slow they should be called *stupor-*telephoto.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jul 7, 2020)

unfocused said:


> That's not only insane, it's delusional.


Ok definitely the 600mm price was a bit delusional but I wasn’t far off on the 800mm price!


----------



## Pape (Jul 7, 2020)

800mm and 100-500mm nearly same weighting ,that feels bit fail .
Same sized lenses and other got nearly double more lenses and metal construction?


----------



## neonlight (Jul 7, 2020)

Wot no green ring?
One thing concerns me is that the f/11 will be diffraction limited on many sensors. I'll have to wait for some of the reviews to see how good these really are.


----------



## melgross (Jul 7, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> No it actually is a big negative and the reason so many 800L owners sold them and bought 600II lenses when it came out. You had IQ that matched the 800L when you shot the 600 at 840. You had 1.4x better magnification and at a more reasonable 4.5m MFD. You had more supported AF points and you had a lighter lens. The 800L was special for its time but once the 600II (and now the III) came along the 800L is an inferior option IMO unless you can scoop one up for a super cheap used deal. I wonder why Canon never made a 2nd version of it....hhmmmmm...


The main reason those lenses stopped being made was for the same reason the 1200 stopped being made. Cost.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2020)

melgross said:


> The main reason those lenses stopped being made was for the same reason the 1200 stopped being made. Cost.


Was it cost? The 800mm is an f/5.6 and has a slightly smaller diameter front element than the 600mm f/4. I'd be surprised if there is much difference in cost of manufacture. A 600mm f/4 is just so much more versatile giving 600mm f/4, 840mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8, compared with 800mm f/5.6 and 1120mm f/8.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2020)

neonlight said:


> Wot no green ring?
> One thing concerns me is that the f/11 will be diffraction limited on many sensors. I'll have to wait for some of the reviews to see how good these really are.


I've posted elsewhere here that on a 50 Mpx sensor dropping the aperture from from f/5.6 to f/11 loses about 15% in resolution because of diffraction.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 8, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Ok definitely the 600mm price was a bit delusional but I wasn’t far off on the 800mm price!


Yep. I'm stunned. You were righter and I was wronger.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 8, 2020)

geffy said:


> true but its already paid for and any purchase nowadays is difficult to justify, the R was bought for peanuts


Don't disagree. I own the Sigma Contemporary and while I'd like something lighter, it's not worth the trade off in f/stop. It's hard enough to get enough light for f6.3, much less for f11.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> I imagine they'll come out with extension tubes soon enough. I could use a 12mm tube on my 600/4 and still infinity focus, due I assume to tolerances in the system.
> 
> I like butterflies, so if I got one of these I'd totally get an extension tube for it.


It might be rather a long extension to have a serious effect on the mfd of an 800mm lens. How much effect on mfd does the 12mm have on your 600mm?


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 8, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Come on, that's less than a stop different, and the new camera's sensor may well be enough improved that it's a wash.



Actually f/6.3 and f/11 are about 1.7 stops apart, f/9 would be one stop from f/6.3.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Come on, that's less than a stop different, and the new camera's sensor may well be enough improved that it's a wash.


Modern sensors are very efficient at harvesting light and there is very little room for improvement, unfortunately.


----------



## Joules (Jul 8, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm interested that the Canon Software claims to be able to correct even this diffraction to some extent but I can't figure out how. (As an engineer many things I can figure out but not this.)


It is probably a Form of deconvolution they are using, similarly to the SmartSharpen Filter in Photoshop? I haven't used the Canon one myself, so that's just a guess.


----------



## Fischer (Jul 8, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> The 600/11 will have a 54mm aperture. Even the 50mm f/1.0L lens only had a 50mm aperture, so this will blur even more than the 50/1.0 wide open.
> 
> The 800/11 will have a 72mm aperture, which is the square root of two bigger than the 50mm's 50mm aperture. That means the blur would be 1.4x the width, or 2.0x the area, as you'd see by cropping a 50/1.0L image after shooting both lenses wide open.


You have made this point a couple of times. But its wholly irrelevant. The subject distance used for a 600mm lens and 50mm lens are typically completely different and so is the focusing distance btw. So different F/-stops going from say 600mm f/5.6 to F/11 absolutely matters because it shows different degrees of blur - at a long distance.

This is why I and others are willing to pay a huge premium to have a 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 in stead of a 300mm f/4 or 400mm f/5.6 lens.


----------



## Billct (Jul 8, 2020)

If it weight your worried about why not get a point and shoot. Some of those zoom to 2000mm. Nikon coolpix will cost about as much as these lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm interested that the Canon Software claims to be able to correct even this diffraction to some extent but I can't figure out how. (As an engineer many things I can figure out but not this.)


Neither can I Frank. I think for simple systems you can do Fourier analysis of the point spread function but I don't know how they do this for the digital images that we generate.

Addition - there are approaches that do this, the Lucy-Richardson Algorithm is one that is frequently used - see https://www.mathworks.com/help/imag...the-lucy-richardson-algorithm.html#d120e36224


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 8, 2020)

Billct said:


> Why f11 what am I missing here.


Goes along with the relatively low price.


----------



## chris_overseas (Jul 8, 2020)

AlanF said:


> 100-400mm II not much good for insects? Take a look here for a start https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/



Perhaps "not much use" is too strong a phrasing, but I stand by my opinion that the 100-400 isn't a great lens for insects. There's some good shots in that link but I honestly think a lot of those aren't sharp, and perhaps have suffered from too much cropping or compression? I find the amount of cropping required is often a problem with the 100-400 with insects, that's just the nature of the lens vs subject size.

Nice coincidence on the damselflies though... I happened to see some a couple of weeks ago too - first time I'd really seen them, they're great! I had both the 100-400mm II and 100 macro with me and have to say I was _much_ happier with the results I got from the macro. Unfortunately I don't have too many like-for-like comparison shots to illustrate my point, but here's one example:

100-400mm II: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7761.jpg
100mm macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7849.jpg

The first I had to crop quite heavily and in my view the sharpness and detail fall quite short compared to the second.

The reason for the green background in the second shot is I had someone hold up a big leaf for me for that one. Maybe that's the real reason why I prefer the macro shot


----------



## chris_overseas (Jul 8, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I admire you hiking with an 800mm. I couldn’t even contemplate it. I have a 600mm F4 II and it’s a bit like an aircraft carrier. I need to bring a sturdy tripod and gimbal head. You end up going with so much weight. I have hand held it in safari but it takes its toll.
> I don’t mind the 100-400 at all for insects. Of course not as good as a dedicated macro but not bad. It’s a fairly flexible lens. I would have liked Canon to do a good 150-600mm EF lens but the EF era is gone.



I must admit I'm finding it more difficult to lug around than I did a few years ago! I can't hand hold it for more than maybe 30 seconds, and it's not usually worth trying because it's so hard to hold steady enough anyway. What I find works really well however is a Gitzo monopod plus a Mongoose 4th gen gimbal head. They help keep the weight down and are plenty sturdy enough for all but the most challenging conditions. The monopod works better for me than a tripod for tracking rapidly moving animals, and is also very effective in safari vehicles or Zodiacs, where tripods aren't practical.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 8, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Perhaps "not much use" is too strong a phrasing, but I stand by my opinion that the 100-400 isn't a great lens for insects. There's some good shots in that link but I honestly think a lot of those aren't sharp, and perhaps have suffered from too much cropping or compression? I find the amount of cropping required is often a problem with the 100-400 with insects, that's just the nature of the lens vs subject size.
> 
> Nice coincidence on the damselflies though... I happened to see some a couple of weeks ago too - first time I'd really seen them, they're great! I had both the 100-400mm II and 100 macro with me and have to say I was _much_ happier with the results I got from the macro. Unfortunately I don't have too many like-for-like comparison shots to illustrate my point, but here's one example:
> 
> ...


First, I would like to say that you took some beautiful pictures there!  

But you must have been appreciably closer when you used your 100mm macro, compared to the 100-400, since 1) the dragonfly image is bigger in it, and 2) you had to "crop quite heavily" the image from the 100-400, and 3) the 100-400 can't go wider than 100 which would have explained why the image was so much smaller originally. With all that being said, it kind of calls into question the comparison.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Perhaps "not much use" is too strong a phrasing, but I stand by my opinion that the 100-400 isn't a great lens for insects. There's some good shots in that link but I honestly think a lot of those aren't sharp, and perhaps have suffered from too much cropping or compression? I find the amount of cropping required is often a problem with the 100-400 with insects, that's just the nature of the lens vs subject size.
> 
> Nice coincidence on the damselflies though... I happened to see some a couple of weeks ago too - first time I'd really seen them, they're great! I had both the 100-400mm II and 100 macro with me and have to say I was _much_ happier with the results I got from the macro. Unfortunately I don't have too many like-for-like comparison shots to illustrate my point, but here's one example:
> 
> ...


Now show us some dragonflies in flight taken with your 100mm macro. There are plenty taken with the 100-400mm II in the link for comparison.


----------



## chris_overseas (Jul 8, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> First, I would like to say that you took some beautiful pictures there!
> 
> But you must have been appreciably closer when you used your 100mm macro, compared to the 100-400, since 1) the dragonfly image is bigger in it, and 2) you had to "crop quite heavily" the image from the 100-400, and 3) the 100-400 can't go wider than 100 which would have explained why the image was so much smaller originally. With all that being said, it kind of calls into question the comparison.



Thank you. Yes absolutely I was closer, that was partly my point. The MFD of the 100-400 combined with the small size of insects make it hard to avoid having to crop quite heavily, that's one reason I say it's not a great lens for insects. If you zoom both photos to 100% there's a visible difference in sharpness too which is independent of the cropping. Admittedly some of that is likely from camera shake and wind moving the subject, but the macro is a sharper lens without a doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 100-400 and find it incredibly versatile, I just don't think insects are its strong point.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 8, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Thank you. Yes absolutely I was closer, that was partly my point. The MFD of the 100-400 combined with the small size of insects make it hard to avoid having to crop quite heavily, that's one reason I say it's not a great lens for insects. If you zoom both photos to 100% there's a visible difference in sharpness too which is independent of the cropping. Admittedly some of that is likely from camera shake and wind moving the subject, but the macro is a sharper lens without a doubt.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love the 100-400 and find it incredibly versatile, I just don't think insects are its strong point.


Thanks for mentioning why you were closer with the macro. That makes perfect sense, and a closer focus allows higher max. magnification and that is why I often look for a very high max. mag. value when deciding on which lens to get. With that said, the macro shot is way better.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Thank you. Yes absolutely I was closer, that was partly my point. The MFD of the 100-400 combined with the small size of insects make it hard to avoid having to crop quite heavily, that's one reason I say it's not a great lens for insects. If you zoom both photos to 100% there's a visible difference in sharpness too which is independent of the cropping. Admittedly some of that is likely from camera shake and wind moving the subject, but the macro is a sharper lens without a doubt.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love the 100-400 and find it incredibly versatile, I just don't think insects are its strong point.


What lens do you use for dragonflies in flight that is much stronger than the 100-400mm II? And what do you use for butterflies that get skittish when you get close?


----------



## chris_overseas (Jul 8, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Now show us some dragonflies in flight taken with your 100mm macro. There are plenty taken with the 100-400mm II in the link for comparison.



Sadly I struggled to get decent shutter speeds that day so gave up on that pretty quickly. The only in-flight shot I haven't yet deleted
happens to have been taken with the 100mm, though it's not great - and as you can tell from the focus it also wasn't intentional! http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7869.jpg I'm not sure the 100-400 has much of an advantage over the macro for small flying subjects like these though because the same limitations still apply whether flying or stationary, and the damselflies are cooperative enough that they come within comfortable range of the macro.

Slightly bigger subjects like small birds are different story, there I'd say the 100-400 really starts to come into its own. Here's one from the back yard a month or so ago at 400mm that would have been impossible with the macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7137.jpg (taken from much further away than I'd have liked because the goldfinches are so skittish I can't get anywhere near them. The robins are much more cooperative! )

I guess this has diverged a lot from the original topic, so by way of steering it back a little... I'm genuinely curious to see what the two f/11 lenses are capable of when combined with the likely stellar AF and decent high ISO of the R5. I suspect with good light, action shots might be more readily obtainable than the f/11 implies.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 8, 2020)

chris_overseas said:


> Sadly I struggled to get decent shutter speeds that day so gave up on that pretty quickly. The only in-flight shot I haven't yet deleted
> happens to have been taken with the 100mm, though it's not great - and as you can tell from the focus it also wasn't intentional! http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7869.jpg I'm not sure the 100-400 has much of an advantage over the macro for small flying subjects like these though because the same limitations still apply whether flying or stationary, and the damselflies are cooperative enough that they come within range of the macro.
> 
> Slightly bigger subjects like small birds are different story, there I'd say the 100-400 really starts to come into its own. Here's one from the back yard a month or so ago at 400mm that would have been impossible with the macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7137.jpg (taken from much further away than I'd have liked because the goldfinches are so skittish I can't get anywhere near them. The robins are much more cooperative! )
> ...


If you're interested in the long lenses for little things like dragonflies taken from a distance, I suggest you look at getting the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS lens which has a 0.33 max magnification. It's the max. mag. that's crucial to get a close to full sensor shot of a dragonfly, and the zoom will help you have any chance of following it in flight. Have you looked at the smallest width image the 800mm f11 can take? I think it has 0.14x max mag, so it'd be 257mm wide (10") which means you'll be cropping out the wazoo, so what good is it for little things?


----------



## chris_overseas (Jul 8, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> If you're interested in the long lenses for little things like dragonflies, I suggest you look at getting the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS lens which has a 0.33 max magnification. It's the max. mag. that's crucial to get a close to full sensor shot of a dragonfly, and the zoom will help you have any chance of following it in flight. Have you looked at the smallest width image the 800mm f11 can take? I think it has 0.14x max mag, so it'd be 257mm wide (10") which means you'll be cropping out the wazoo, so what good is it for little things?



Yes I agree, the 800 will be hopeless for anything small - my comments on the f/11 lenses were regarding action in general, sorry I should have made that clear. I don't think I've ever even attempted taking a photo of an insect with my 800!


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 9, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> I think those are all factors you DO have to face when making a real-world decision. A choice between lens A and B for a given subject or shot is never going to be a FAIR test. If the given subject is going to require massive cropping with one of the alternatives, then you have to base your decision on that in part. You can't just shrug and say, well, the MTF curve is comperable so it should be a toss-up _if we were being fair._


I already responded accordingly to chris_overseas above. I guess you didn't see it. I'll paste a copy of it here so you can see it:

"Thanks for mentioning why you were closer with the macro. That makes perfect sense, and a closer focus allows higher max. magnification and that is why I often look for a very high max. mag. value when deciding on which lens to get. With that said, the macro shot is way better."

OK?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 9, 2020)

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the specs now show the f/11 aperture is fixed and no stopping down.

Does anyone know where Canon hides its MTF curves - I can't find them?


----------



## SteveC (Jul 9, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the specs now show the f/11 aperture is fixed and no stopping down.
> 
> Does anyone know where Canon hides its MTF curves - I can't find them?



So everyone who didn't complain about it being only f/11, will now complain that they can't lower it further.  Not that I would blame them, in this case.


----------



## geffy (Jul 9, 2020)

As far as i see its only f11 or have i misunderstood the launch video


----------



## JayLT (Jul 10, 2020)

geffy said:


> As far as i see its only f11 or have i misunderstood the launch video



It is f/11 only and fixed at that aperture. It was mentioned a couple times that they will work with both of the new tele-converters with AF, I would be interesting to see the results of that just for fun!


----------



## okaro (Jul 10, 2020)

Billct said:


> Why f11 what am I missing here.



Price and size: 800 mm f/5.6L is 4.5 kg and costs 14000 €. This is 1.3 kg and 1080 €. With DSLRs it was harder to make slower lenses because of the autofocus. These are not for serious nature photographers who shoot at dusk. These are for more casual use carried while hiking in good weather. The intention is to compete with lenses made for smaller sensors as well as super zooms. Canon G3 X for example has lens that longest is equivalent to 600 mm f/16. Sony RX 100 IV is 600 mm f/11.

I think Canon's long term strategy is to move everyone or almost everyone to full frame so the EOS RP is equivalent to the Nikon Z50. To make this affordable they need cheaper and slower lenses. I think they should do 24-70 mm f/5.6 (or 5.6-8) with IS. If this sounds slow the kit lens of M50 is equivalent to 24-72 mm f/5.6-10. In this way a user could get a cheap system and then supplement it with fast and affordable primes if needed.


----------



## geffy (Jul 10, 2020)

okaro said:


> Price and size: 800 mm f/5.6L is 4.5 kg and costs 14000 €. This is 1.3 kg and 1080 €. With DSLRs it was harder to make slower lenses because of the autofocus. These are not for serious nature photographers who shoot at dusk. These are for more casual use carried while hiking in good weather. The intention is to compete with lenses made for smaller sensors as well as super zooms. Canon G3 X for example has lens that longest is equivalent to 600 mm f/16. Sony RX 100 IV is 600 mm f/11.
> 
> I think Canon's long term strategy is to move everyone or almost everyone to full frame so the EOS RP is equivalent to the Nikon Z50. To make this affordable they need cheaper and slower lenses. I think they should do 24-70 mm f/5.6 (or 5.6-8) with IS. If this sounds slow the kit lens of M50 is equivalent to 24-72 mm f/5.6-10. In this way a user could get a cheap system and then supplement it with fast and affordable primes if needed.


rx10 is f4 at 600 equivalent for exposure while its f11 for bokey it is a stunning lens for what it is it is an eye opener for whoever uses it


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 10, 2020)

Andreasb said:


> As a bird photographer, with a 400 F4 DO II , 500 F5.6 PF and 600mm F4 lenses. I have absolutely NO interest in F11 lenses because of two things



Thanks for telling us you're not part of the target audience. Now why should we care? I'm not in the market for many things but I don't run around Internet forums explaining how those things aren't for me personally.



> These are consumer offerings, not for serious wildlife photographers



Gee, thank you Captain Obvious. I'm sure this fact was lost to many people who genuinely thought they could replace their €15,000 EF 600mm f/4L with one of these.


----------



## Andreasb (Jul 10, 2020)

If you actually read and had understood what I wrote, you might have realized I was trying to do you and many others a favor, these lenses will on an average day most likely produce average image quality because of too low shutter speeds or very grainy images because you have to increase you ISO by up to 3 stops to get the image sharp and shake free. And then there is the beginning of diffraction as well to care about. I'm sure Canon will sell lots of these, but I fear the customers wont be that happy.

What I was trying to tell people that don't have the experience to shoot at these focal lengths is that it is hard to shoot long lenses, and it doesn't get better at F11



Sharlin said:


> Thanks for telling us you're not part of the target audience. Now why should we care? I'm not in the market for many things but I don't run around Internet forums explaining how those things aren't for me personally.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, thank you Captain Obvious. I'm sure this fact was lost to many people who genuinely thought they could replace their €15,000 EF 600mm f/4L with one of these.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 10, 2020)

Andreasb said:


> If you actually read and had understood what I wrote, you might have realized I was trying to do you and many others a favor, these lenses will on an average day most likely produce average image quality because of too low shutter speeds or very grainy images because you have to increase you ISO by up to 3 stops to get the image sharp and shake free. And then there is the beginning of diffraction as well to care about. I'm sure Canon will sell lots of these, but I fear the customers wont be that happy.
> 
> What I was trying to tell people that don't have the experience to shoot at these focal lengths is that it is hard to shoot long lenses, and it doesn't get better at F11



I think people buying these will be first time wildlife shooters and they'll find the images they produce to be way ahead of what comes out their phone. Certainly form the sample images I would not be disappointed posting a image out of this to the web. I don't think I would be printing these images, but not disappointed ether. The sample of the squirrel at ISO1600, f/11, 1/160 looked perfectly fine coming from a EOS R.


----------



## geffy (Jul 10, 2020)

I had a look at the sample images and while i get its not original file size. they are worrying, well composed professional shots that look different from well composed professional shots and i worry these super teles are another 24 to 240 relying on software for applied quality, hence the unusual look


----------



## AlanF (Jul 11, 2020)

Andreasb said:


> If you actually read and had understood what I wrote, you might have realized I was trying to do you and many others a favor, these lenses will on an average day most likely produce average image quality because of too low shutter speeds or very grainy images because you have to increase you ISO by up to 3 stops to get the image sharp and shake free. And then there is the beginning of diffraction as well to care about. I'm sure Canon will sell lots of these, but I fear the customers wont be that happy.
> 
> What I was trying to tell people that don't have the experience to shoot at these focal lengths is that it is hard to shoot long lenses, and it doesn't get better at F11


I am sure I could shoot with these lenses and get images that would be very satisfying for me. And those who don’t have much experience would soon learn how to improve their technique and discover when and where they are suitable.


----------



## Pixel (Aug 24, 2020)

"A pig"









Taking Apart the Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM


Here I sit, the guy who gets poetic writing about tiny resolution differences in high-priced wide-aperture lenses, having just bought this lens. Its aperture is in the diffraction-softening range. The manufacturer's (pronounced 'better than reality') MTF charts aren't very good. So why did I buy...



www.lensrentals.com


----------



## Darkknight59 (Aug 26, 2020)

Rf 600....I'm tempted to buy this lens as it is intriguing ...however I'm not into "birding" or "wildlife" photography ..what would be other uses for this lens recommended?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 26, 2020)

Darkknight59 said:


> Rf 600....I'm tempted to buy this lens as it is intriguing ...however I'm not into "birding" or "wildlife" photography ..what would be other uses for this lens recommended?



social distancing friendly portraiture with MFD being around 6m?  seriously though: airshows, even sport outdoors (good lighting conditions). could be a bit too long at times but football, soccer should be just fine.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 26, 2020)

Darkknight59 said:


> Rf 600....I'm tempted to buy this lens as it is intriguing ...however I'm not into "birding" or "wildlife" photography ..what would be other uses for this lens recommended?


Part of a pirate costume next Halloween...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> social distancing friendly portraiture with MFD being around 6m?  seriously though: airshows, even sport outdoors (good lighting conditions). could be a bit too long at times but football, soccer should be just fine.


Many a true word spoken in jest. One of my little jobs is to photo newcomers and I have told them it will be outside with a telephoto.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 26, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Many a true word spoken in jest. One of my little jobs is to photo newcomers and I have told them it will be outside with a telephoto.



I joked the other day (somewhere else) about holding a club meeting on a ranch, one chair per acre.

(Edit: And I forgot myself, sorry--I try to supply metric on international sites. 2.5 acres makes up (roughly) one hectare. A hectare is 100x100m, an acre is 1/640th of a square mile so ten acres is 1/8 x 1/8th of a mile which happens to be roughly a 200x200m square. [it's convenient that 100 meters is about 110 years, and 110 yards actually is 1/16th of a mile.])


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I joked the other day (somewhere else) about holding a club meeting on a ranch, one chair per acre.
> 
> (Edit: And I forgot myself, sorry--I try to supply metric on international sites. 2.5 acres makes up (roughly) one hectare. A hectare is 100x100m, an acre is 1/640th of a square mile so ten acres is 1/8 x 1/8th of a mile which happens to be roughly a 200x200m square. [it's convenient that 100 meters is about 110 years, and 110 yards actually is 1/16th of a mile.])


The good old days in 1935 when Jesse Owens ran 20.3s for the 220 yards (201.17m) and simultaneously broke the 200m world record.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I joked the other day (somewhere else) about holding a club meeting on a ranch, one chair per acre.
> 
> (Edit: And I forgot myself, sorry--I try to supply metric on international sites. 2.5 acres makes up (roughly) one hectare. A hectare is 100x100m, an acre is 1/640th of a square mile so ten acres is 1/8 x 1/8th of a mile which happens to be roughly a 200x200m square. [it's convenient that 100 meters is about 110 years, and 110 yards actually is 1/16th of a mile.])


So let me get this right, my lot is just over 5 acres, or 2 hectares, or 220 years [sic] ?


----------



## SteveC (Aug 26, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> So let me get this right, my lot is just over 5 acres, or 2 hectares, or 220 years [sic] ?



Hah, good catch! But even if I had typed yards, you can't do that, area vs. length. It's handy of course that 100m = 110yards (with a fudge factor) because it lets you convert acres to hectares (with that same fudge factor, squared).

Of course it feels like we've been dealing with [controversy that shall remain un-named] trolls bringing it onto every thread on this board for about 110 years, so maybe that's why I slipped.


----------



## ChrisBainbridge1 (Aug 29, 2020)

HI, wanted to share my first tests with the new RF 800mm F11 lens in case they are useful to people considering this or the 600mm? 

Test carried yesterday. All 3 lenses mounted on Canon EOS RP. Gitzo tripod, IS turned off. 2 second timer. 10 metre distance to the Queen (for me a typical perched bird distance).

Just to add, I am a bird photographer and my current preferred set-up is the Canon 600mm F4 II, usually with a 1.4 III. Main bodies 5D Mark IV and 5DSr (it is great for wildlife!).

I mainly wanted to see how the new Canon lens performed against the 100-400 II (with extender) and was pleasantly surprised. To me it looks to have resolved significantly more detail. I know that my 100-400 and 600 are sharp copies - and the mirrorless body removes any questions over lens micro-adjustment.

Bought this and the RP for a light weight alternative to lugging round the 600 F4.

Time will tell how this lens performs in the real world - with that F11 limitatiion. Didn't want to invest in a more suitable mirrorless body (than the RP) for bird photography if the lens itself wasn't any good, but might have to save my pennies now!


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2020)

Chris, having Her Majesty as a "bird" is simply beyond the pale. It's pistols at dawn, socially distanced of course. If it stops raining and I can find a tenner, I'll take a photo with both a 1.4xTCIII and 2xTCIII on a 100-400mm II to compare with your leftmost image.


----------



## ChrisBainbridge1 (Aug 29, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Chris, having Her Majesty as a "bird" is simply beyond the pale. It's pistols at dawn, socially distanced of course. If it stops raining and I can find a tenner, I'll take a photo with both a 1.4xTCIII and 2xTCIII on a 100-400mm II to compare with your leftmost image.


Hi Alan, no insult intended to Her Majesty, good luck with the rain stopping. I am still aiming to try and get some real shots this weekend, but as it is a Bank Holiday weekend in England, don't hold out too much hope.


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 29, 2020)

ChrisBainbridge1 said:


> HI, wanted to share my first tests with the new RF 800mm F11 lens in case they are useful to people considering this or the 600mm?
> 
> Test carried yesterday. All 3 lenses mounted on Canon EOS RP. Gitzo tripod, IS turned off. 2 second timer. 10 metre distance to the Queen (for me a typical perched bird distance).
> 
> ...


Thanks for your post, Chris! - it's really helpful to see the images side by side at the same size.
I thinks it's quite clear that the resolution of the 800mm f11 is roughly in-between that of the other 2 choices. But the contrast might(?) be lower on the 800 f11 than the others.

I have a couple questions (if you don't mind):
* Why does the 800 f11 image seem (to me) darker? Is it possible it needed more exposure, or is the contrast suffering across the image from the DO lens edges (or both)?
* The # of pixels in the height of each image must be somewhat different, due to different lens magnification (560mm vs 800mm vs 840mm) and sensor pixel size. Did you have to up-sample two of them to match the other? (and which one had the most pixel height?). If you up-sampled the 800 f11 image to fit the (un-resampled) 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC then it would be interesting to see the identical test, but this time down-sample the 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC image to the size of the (un-resampled) 800 11 one - I'd be curious if that made any noticeable visual improvement in the 800 f11 relative to the 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC?

Another post you might want to consider, is to compare (like above) the images from the 800 f11 versus the 800 f11 + RF 1.4xTC. Show one picture with the 800 up-sampled to fit the 800 + 1.4xTC and a separate picture with the 800 + 1.4xTC down-sampled to fit the 800. That would let me (and others) know what the benefit is to use the RF 1.4xTC on the 800 f11 lens is (versus just not using it).


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for your post, Chris! - it's really helpful to see the images side by side at the same size.
> I thinks it's quite clear that the resolution of the 800mm f11 is roughly in-between that of the other 2 choices. But the contrast might(?) be lower on the 800 f11 than the others.
> 
> I have a couple questions (if you don't mind):
> ...


The relative merits of using the 1.4xTC depend on the number of megapixels on the sensor. On the high resolution R5, it will be close to useless as f/11 onwards is far into diffraction limitation. On the lower resolution RP that Chris used or the R6, you might see some small benefit, depending on how good the TC is and the compatibility of the lens. I calculated the theoretical effects here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 29, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The relative merits of using the 1.4xTC depend on the number of megapixels on the sensor. On the high resolution R5, it will be close to useless as f/11 onwards is far into diffraction limitation. On the lower resolution RP that Chris used or the R6, you might see some small benefit, depending on how good the TC is and the compatibility of the lens. I calculated the theoretical effects here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/


In your previous post you mention you expect the 100-500 ...-f7.1 + 1.4TC to outresolve the 800mm f11 on the R5. It would be nice to see an actual side-by-side comparison to make sure of this (both for resolution and for contrast). It'd also be good to have confirmation to everyone considering what to buy with the R5 (whether to buy the 800 f11 or just add the RF 1.4TC to the 100-500).


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 29, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> In your previous post you mention you expect the 100-500 ...-f7.1 + 1.4TC to outresolve the 800mm f11 on the R5. It would be nice to see an actual side-by-side comparison to make sure of this (both for resolution and for contrast). It'd also be good to have confirmation to everyone considering what to buy with the R5 (whether to buy the 800 f11 or just add the RF 1.4TC to the 100-500).


For some, the large price difference between those two choices may outweigh resolution differences. For those with the wherewithal, maybe not.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> In your previous post you mention you expect the 100-500 ...-f7.1 + 1.4TC to outresolve the 800mm f11 on the R5. It would be nice to see an actual side-by-side comparison to make sure of this (both for resolution and for contrast). It'd also be good to have confirmation to everyone considering what to buy with the R5 (whether to buy the 800 f11 or just add the RF 1.4TC to the 100-500).


Small differences in resolution may be well down the list of priorities when making choices. As BeenThere notes, price could be a major consideration, whereas versatility of a zoom vs prime, minimum focal distance, size etc are of overriding importance to others. I made a mistake when writing adding the 1.4xTC to the 100-500 outresolves the 800 f/11. I've modified it to: 

The 800mm f/11 outresolves the 100-500mm f/7.1 on the R5 and R6, but adding the 1.4xTC to the zoom brings it closer to the 800mm prime.


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 29, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Small differences in resolution may be well down the list of priorities when making choices. As BeenThere notes, price could be a major consideration, whereas versatility of a zoom vs prime, minimum focal distance, size etc are of overriding importance to others. I made a mistake when writing adding the 1.4xTC to the 100-500 outresolves the 800 f/11. I've modified it to:
> 
> The 800mm f/11 outresolves the 100-500mm f/7.1 on the R5 and R6, but adding the 1.4xTC to the zoom brings it closer to the 800mm prime.


Thanks for the clarification. I already have the R5 and RF 800mm f11. I'm going to get the RF 100-500. At the moment, I'm leaning towards *not* getting any RF TC for either of them and instead using them as-is and cropping the result if needed. A major (or huge to me) benefit of this is the framing of shots is much easier with the wider view (especially for BIF). Besides making framing easier, if I ever wanted a bit more image off a particular edge than the TC combo allowed, the as-is (non-TC combo) version gives me a ton of extra image to crop into when needed.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I already have the R5 and RF 800mm f11. I'm going to get the RF 100-500. At the moment, I'm leaning towards *not* getting any RF TC for either of them and instead using them as-is and cropping the result if needed. A major (or huge to me) benefit of this is the framing of shots is much easier with the wider view (especially for BIF). Besides making framing easier, if I ever wanted a bit more image off a particular edge than the TC combo allowed, the as-is (non-TC combo) version gives me a ton of extra image to crop into when needed.


I am of like mind about wider field of view for BIF. I used to use 800mm/f8 on the 5DIV for slow moving far away big birds, and it was fine. But, 400 or 500mm on FF is so much easier for me, and you can catch them as they come much closer, which is when you get the best shots. I can't resist posting this puffin with sandeels, I tracked him with the 400mm on the 5DIV coming at me and got him close up. But, for Covid, I would have been back there this year. I am looking forward to eyeAF on the R5 for these shots when birds get close

.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I am of like mind about wider field of view for BIF. I used to use 800mm/f8 on the 5DIV for slow moving far away big birds, and it was fine. But, 400 or 500mm on FF is so much easier for me, and you can catch them as they come much closer, which is when you get the best shots. I can't resist posting this puffin with sandeels, I tracked him with the 400mm on the 5DIV coming at me and got him close up. But, for Covid, I would have been back there this year. I am looking forward to eyeAF on the R5 for these shots when birds get close
> View attachment 192507
> .



If I may ask Alan, where was this? You can decline without offending!

I did Puffins off the Northumberland coast when I was living in the UK but with mixed success. Had great fun shooting grey seals at a hidden location in Scotland (bet I've lost the google map for that one, ha ha).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> If I may ask Alan, where was this? You can decline without offending!
> 
> I did Puffins off the Northumberland coast when I was living in the UK but with mixed success. Had great fun shooting grey seals at a hidden location in Scotland (bet I've lost the google map for that one, ha ha).


Stu, I have very few secrets! It was the inner Farne Island, off that very coast. I had the 5DIV and 400mm DO II and no problem tracking these little fast flyers. There were others with very large whites on tripods who couldn't move their lenses fast enough and were complaining.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Stu, I have very few secrets! It was the inner Farne Island, off that very coast. I had the 5DIV and 400mm DO II and no problem tracking these little fast flyers. There were others with very large whites on tripods who couldn't move their lenses fast enough and were complaining.



I don’t recall which one I went to, but thanks for the guidance Alan, appreciated. I will return with a smaller lens then next time!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> I don’t recall which one I went to, but thanks for the guidance Alan, appreciated. I will return with a smaller lens then next time!


I had no problem panning them with the 5DIV set to the central 9 points. They are very fast but travel in absolutely straight lines.


----------

