# First Leaked Images of the RF 800mm F5.6L IS USM and the RF 1200mm F8L IS USM



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

> These are the first leaked pictures of the upcoming Canon RF 800mm F5.6L IS USM and the Canon RF 1200mm F8L IS USM. Both of these lenses have been on our roadmap for quite some time.
> The 1200mm is most definitely a normal optic (a monster lens at that) and not a catadioptric lens.
> From the image, they’re going to be announced on February 24th.



Continue reading...


----------



## CanonGrunt (Feb 22, 2022)

I did just sell my house…


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> I did just sell my house…


You certainly need more than a kidney!


----------



## LSXPhotog (Feb 22, 2022)

It's a shame this isn't just an 800mm f/5.6 with a built in 1.4 Extender to make it an 1120mm f/8. I can't honestly dream of too many uses for such a long 1200mm lens, but I would love to see it being put into use.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 22, 2022)

I wonder if the rear metal element can be factory -removed, in order to convert RF into EF, since there are still many professional DSLR users.
Provided these are the real pictures of the lenses.


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 22, 2022)

1200mm is not a catadioptric as many predicted. 

-Brian


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 22, 2022)

Looks like just a EF 600mm with attached 2X TC.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 22, 2022)

Quite distinct approaches to 800mm primes from Nikon and Canon.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 22, 2022)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...


How many of the 1200mm lenses do you suppose Canon will sell in the next 5 years?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 22, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> How many of the 1200mm lenses do you suppose Canon will sell in the next 5 years?


I would think initially there will be a good pent up demand from the kinds of people that really use that kind of thing. I'd think there will be a lot of Government agencies looking to get them, all the big photo agencies will want a few, each Canon CPS nation will want several, lots of private security and surveillance users too.

Then you move on to the actual photographers, for shore based surf photography it is a dream lens, I'd think there will be a few astro photographers interested etc etc. 

After the initial 5 years, once the pent up demand has eased, I'd think the sales would slow down to a trickle though.


----------



## juststeve (Feb 22, 2022)

That 800/5.6 looks to be a lot stubbier than the EF 800/5.6. DO, perhaps? Or a fake with a little PS help?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 22, 2022)

juststeve said:


> That 800/5.6 looks to be a lot stubbier than the EF 800/5.6. DO, perhaps? Or a fake with a little PS help?



Yeah, it looks shorter, especially the front section with the red ring. Hope it's a new design, not that i will able to afford it...


----------



## unfocused (Feb 22, 2022)

Referencing the China announcement post, perhaps Canon is calling this a "companion" because you will need to hire someone to carry it for you.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 22, 2022)

Somehow they look shorter than I'd expect. Perhaps the objective lenses are just so darned wide that it gives that impression, and I'm not thinking in the right scale. 

I will be very interested to see if the MTF graphs that'll come out on launch compare favorably to the 600mm with a 1.4x teleconverter. To launch this sort of a monster I suppose it must. 

Also curious about the 800 + 1.4x TC versus the 1200 f/8. If the 1200 doesn't beat the pants off the 800, then it's just a lot more bulk to carry around. 

Big "whomp whomp whooomp" to Sony wildlife shooters for the next bunch of quarters before they can marshall something equivalent. And for the next few years for the Nikonians, who have a better chance of getting something from Sigma or Tamron in terms of big pro lens release timing.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 22, 2022)

These just look like EF lenses with adaptors bolted on. I was very much hoping the 400 and 600 were using a stopgap design and that the newer lenses would ether have some value add, or at least a better looking mount design. Of course performance comes first, but I can't help but think the Nikon super tele lenses are looking nicer this generation even if the gold ring looks a bit naff. Exciting times ahead for wildlife photographers, we are entering a golden age where we can have 1200mm on a bare lens!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 22, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> These just look like EF lenses with adaptors bolted on. I was very much hoping the 400 and 600 were using a stopgap design and that the newer lenses would ether have some value add, or at least a better looking mount design. Of course performance comes first, but I can't help but think the Nikon super tele lenses are looking nicer this generation even if the gold ring looks a bit naff. Exciting times ahead for wildlife photographers, we are entering a golden age where we can have 1200mm on a bare lens!



The 800mm looks to have different proportions to the EF version, but could be the image distortion.


----------



## StandardLumen (Feb 22, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The 800mm looks to have different proportions to the EF version, but could be the image distortion.


I agree. This 800mm looks a little bit less long than the EF version, whereas if it was just an EF with an adapter it would be longer, not smaller. Hard to say definitively, though.


----------



## MiJax (Feb 22, 2022)

juststeve said:


> That 800/5.6 looks to be a lot stubbier than the EF 800/5.6. DO, perhaps? Or a fake with a little PS help?


Canon said a couple of years back that they were open to adding DO elements in the L lenses. But the size savings on this lens look to be on the front side of the lens however, the rear side looks a little longer when compared to the RF600 4.0 and EF800 5.6 pics. That said, I do think there is a shrinkage going on in there. We'll know in a couple of days though.


----------



## rontele7 (Feb 22, 2022)

What's the point of the 1200 f/8? You could just use the 600 f/4 with a 2X, and have a far more versatile setup. These lenses are silly, hard to believe Canon is wasting resources on these, when the RF mount is still missing a 24mm L, 35mm L, etc.


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 22, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I wonder if the rear metal element can be factory -removed, in order to convert RF into EF, since there are still many professional DSLR users.
> Provided these are the real pictures of the lenses.


RF lenses use totally new & faster protocols to EF, so pretty much zero chance for that.

Also, if you can afford this lens you can probably afford a new R body to go with it.


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 22, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Somehow they look shorter than I'd expect. Perhaps the objective lenses are just so darned wide that it gives that impression, and I'm not thinking in the right scale.
> 
> I will be very interested to see if the MTF graphs that'll come out on launch compare favorably to the 600mm with a 1.4x teleconverter. To launch this sort of a monster I suppose it must.
> 
> ...


I'd much rather buy Nikon's upcoming 600 f/4 with possible 1.4TC built in than this 800/5.6. I'd never even consider an 800/5.6 lens and especially would never buy this 1200/8...in that case I'd rather buy the 800/5.6 and use a 1.4 to get 1120/8. These are such super specialized lenses and as pointed out up thread do have their use cases but still such a weird move by Canon. Where are lenses like 500/4 and 300/2.8? Or better yet more unique stuff like fast DO lenses or interesting zooms?

Sony will never make lenses in these focal lengths....Nikon will have its 800/6.3PF and 600 with built in TC to satisfy a similar market. I don't know any wildlife shooter that would be so interested in either of these lenses to move systems but I'm sure there is someone out there. Prices are going to be insane for these.


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 22, 2022)

MiJax said:


> Canon said a couple of years back that they were open to adding DO elements in the L lenses. But the size savings on this lens look to be on the front side of the lens however, the rear side looks a little longer when compared to the RF600 4.0 and EF800 5.6 pics. That said, I do think there is a shrinkage going on in there. We'll know in a couple of days though.


I really think they just stuck the 2xTC elements into the back of a 400/2.8 and 600/4 and called it a day...oh and of course the silver welded RF-EF adapter


----------



## dolina (Feb 22, 2022)

As someone with a EF 400/2.8 IS II & EF 800/5.6 IS I'd have wanted to see a RF 400/2.8 IS with built-in 2.0x extender & RF 600/4 IS with built-in 2.0x extender.

This would have helped in economies of scale for ultra specialized lenses.

Expect either lenses to cost north of $13,000 or even $17,000.

The RF 800/5.6 & RF 1200/8.0 will hopefully weigh less than 3kg/6.6lbs. That is a key selling point for an upgrade for those still shooting.






I still cannot wrap my head around the timing of the release though. With so many higher volume EF lenses not yet having an RF equivalent I would think Canon would prioritize that first before these ultra niche optics.


----------



## MiJax (Feb 22, 2022)

arbitrage said:


> I really think they just stuck the 2xTC elements into the back of a 400/2.8 and 600/4 and called it a day...oh and of course the silver welded RF-EF adapter


LOL, very possible.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 22, 2022)

Told you so:

_"Feb 14, 2022. I suspect these are the state of the art 400 and 600 lenses with essentially 2x converters permanently attached. With som constraints removed to allow minor optical design improvements. Price: $1000 more then the lenses they are based on."






Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM and Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM coming soon?


Digicame-Info who aggregates rumors and information and typically has reliable information has mentioned today that the RF 800mm and RF 1200mm have been added to overseas dealers lists recently. This usually means that the lenses are very close to becoming available. These lenses have been...




www.canonrumors.com




_


----------



## Bonich (Feb 22, 2022)

Hey Canon

I am in the market for a 2.8 400 with built in 1.4 TC, may be a 4.0 600 with built in TC.
For a straight super tele I am fine with the EF versions adapted.

And I am in the market for a 1.8 135 

The first lets me think about Nikon, the latter about Sony ......


----------



## Tremotino (Feb 22, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Big "whomp whomp whooomp" to Sony wildlife shooters for the next bunch of quarters before they can marshall something equivalent. And for the next few years for the Nikonians, who have a better chance of getting something from Sigma or Tamron in terms of big pro lens release timing.


Really? Will this be the BS we will read here in the future?

There is no reason to turn this site into a toxic platform either.


----------



## bernie_king (Feb 22, 2022)

Maybe this is why I've been waiting since October for my RF 600/4. I've finally been given a date of the first part of March, but we'll see. I'm sure these come off the same manufacturing line. Seems like Canon is so busy introducing new products they don't have the capacity to ship current items.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

rontele7 said:


> What's the point of the 1200 f/8? You could just use the 600 f/4 with a 2X, and have a far more versatile setup. These lenses are silly, hard to believe Canon is wasting resources on these, when the RF mount is still missing a 24mm L, 35mm L, etc.


I think we can take it for granted that a 1200mm F8 native prime will have greater sharpness than a 600mm F4 with a 2x extender tacked on, which by definition doubles the effect of aberrations and lowers the overall image quality. This 1200mm lens is likely to be used mostly for surveillance, where the amount of detail rendered in critical. It's not intended for bird photography, where the 600mm F4 and 2x extender combo is a better choice.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

Tremotino said:


> There is no reason to turn this site into a toxic platform either.


It would indeed be a great shame if Sony-bashing or Nikon-bashing became prevalent here.

All of the camera manufacturers, including Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Leica, Fujifilm and the "big 3" have a great deal to offer, and there's no reason why "pride" in Canon needs to lead to denigrating other brands or celebrating areas where they may lag behind "our" brand.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 22, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> These just look like EF lenses with adaptors bolted on. I was very much hoping the 400 and 600 were using a stopgap design and that the newer lenses would ether have some value add, or at least a better looking mount design.


The 400 and 600 are state of the art lens designs that followed years of a monumental development effort. No need to update when just changing the mount or adding an integrated TC. They are probably working on lens designs that actually need to be updated (300mm f 2.8?)


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 22, 2022)

dolina said:


> Expect either lenses to cost north of $13,000 or even $17,000.


I predicted that each will be $1000 more than the lens it "doubles." But they could be $1000 steps from 400, to 1200.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2022)

We have the rumored announcement of these 'big guns', and the suggested timing of the announcement matches the timing of the Canon China teaser campaign, “The new friend you’ve been waiting for is finally here; see you here in three days.”

I can't help picturing Al Pacino in Scarface.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Feb 22, 2022)

arbitrage said:


> I'd much rather buy Nikon's upcoming 600 f/4 with possible 1.4TC built in than this 800/5.6. I'd never even consider an 800/5.6 lens and especially would never buy this 1200/8...in that case I'd rather buy the 800/5.6 and use a 1.4 to get 1120/8. These are such super specialized lenses and as pointed out up thread do have their use cases but still such a weird move by Canon. Where are lenses like 500/4 and 300/2.8? Or better yet more unique stuff like fast DO lenses or interesting zooms?
> 
> Sony will never make lenses in these focal lengths....Nikon will have its 800/6.3PF and 600 with built in TC to satisfy a similar market. I don't know any wildlife shooter that would be so interested in either of these lenses to move systems but I'm sure there is someone out there. Prices are going to be insane for these.


The Z9+400mm 2.8 with the built in TC has definitely made me question switching brands in the future. As much as that lens makes me feel like it could be a 1 and done lens, I'm too invested in the Canon system to just jump ship at this point. I'm holding out hope for a <6lbs RF 500mm f4 or a RF 200-500mm f4. lens


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 22, 2022)

ncvarsity3 said:


> The Z9+400mm 2.8 with the built in TC has definitely made me question switching brands in the future. As much as that lens makes me feel like it could be a 1 and done lens, I'm too invested in the Canon system to just jump ship at this point. I'm holding out hope for a <6lbs RF 500mm f4 or a RF 200-500mm f4. lens


A 200-500 f/4.0 would make me question my switch to Nikon. But the Z9 and 400 f/2.8 TC and 800 f/6.3 PF are really big surprise wins. I was expecting to just wait for the 180-400 f/4.0 Z TC, not to have a 400 f/2.8 with a built in TC that can basically nail every fox scenario when pair with a second body sporting a 70-200 f/2.8 (that takes the 1.4x TC like its a native 98-280mm f/4.0).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 22, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> I would think initially there will be a good pent up demand from the kinds of people that really use that kind of thing. I'd think there will be a lot of Government agencies looking to get them, all the big photo agencies will want a few, each Canon CPS nation will want several, lots of private security and surveillance users too.
> 
> Then you move on to the actual photographers, for shore based surf photography it is a dream lens, I'd think there will be a few astro photographers interested etc etc.
> 
> After the initial 5 years, once the pent up demand has eased, I'd think the sales would slow down to a trickle though.


Will Canon even make more than a few a year?


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 22, 2022)

Tremotino said:


> Really? Will this be the BS we will read here in the future?
> 
> There is no reason to turn this site into a toxic platform either.


My thoughts exactly when I read that post. There is enough fanboy BS on this forum...last thing we need are the admins egging it on.

But I'll give tiggy the benefit of the doubt as his history on this and other forums has been at a higher standard.


----------



## RunAndGun (Feb 22, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> How many of the 1200mm lenses do you suppose Canon will sell in the next 5 years?


The "original" EF 1200 was built to order(but also a stop faster and almost six-figures at launch[~$90K before tax]).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 22, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> or adding an integrated TC.


You had me up to that point.
I can't see why Canon shouldn't offer more expensive versions with built in teleconverters.
There is so much convenience to not have to take the lens off to add and remove teleconverters.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 22, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Will Canon even make more than a few a year?


My understanding of the super telephotos is that they make them in batches on the same production line. So they make x number of 400's then y number of 800's etc etc. The batch size is obviously determined by the number they think they will sell/need before the production line comes back around to that model.

So yes the first batch will include a decent number of lenses, after that who knows...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 22, 2022)

RunAndGun said:


> The "original" EF 1200 was built to order(but also a stop faster and almost six-figures at launch[~$90K before tax]).


Yes but this newer model is a different beast entirely. No special order needed for a souped up 600 f4


----------



## Copland (Feb 22, 2022)

The EF 400/2.8 II/III with 2x and 1.4x mounted is a brilliant 1120mm Lens in my view and especially a flexible one. 
Of course only on "good light" days. But a 1200mm lens will have the same flickering problems as an almost 1200mm lens.

I´m curious which target group will buy such a special lens. Probably for 2x.xxx $.


----------



## mxwphoto (Feb 22, 2022)

Superimposing the 800mm EF shows a possibly ever so slightly shorter length of the RF in comparison. There may be a slight angle difference, but assuming the front elements are the same size RF does look smaller. The more important metric would be the weight in my opinion. If there is substantial weight savings despite roughly the same length, then it would be a winner.


----------



## NMC (Feb 22, 2022)

Man the next 2 years is going to be expensive! Last year I spent 75k euro on my raptor kit, lenses, A1/Z9/R3. This year I’ve already preordered the 400mm 2.8 Z, then we have the 800mm Z and now I have to get the 800 and 1200 rf lenses, they will be so good with the raptor for my big wave surfing footage. On top of that I’m thinking we’ll have the R1 preorder this year. Ow we’ll need an excuse to buy a new VW van heh! Glad I ain’t married.


----------



## dolina (Feb 22, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> View attachment 202572
> 
> Superimposing the 800mm EF shows a possibly ever so slightly shorter length of the RF in comparison. There may be a slight angle difference, but assuming the front elements are the same size RF does look smaller. The more important metric would be the weight in my opinion. If there is substantial weight savings despite roughly the same length, then it would be a winner.



Less than 3kg/6.6lbs will be a win.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 22, 2022)

If I had to guess, I would say the 800 is a new design, since the EF 800 was introduced in 2008 and is nose heavy compared to the current 400 and 600. The 1200 could be an adaptation of the current 600, but the very long back end suggests more than just the 600 with an extender, and it needs to be more than that, because the performance of the 600 with a 2x isn't all that great, albeit a bit better with an RF extender than an EF III extender.


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 22, 2022)

Two hugely expensive lens. I can't see Canon making much money from them. They must be a prestige loss leader. 
It will be interesting if there is much of difference image quality wise versus a 600mm 1.4 Ext / 2 Ext.
A 1200mm is a most inflexible lens. It's very hard to find or follow anything at 1200mm a built in extender would be far more useful from that perspective.
I won't have to worry about them. Good luck to anyone who gets one.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 22, 2022)

People keep saying just put a 2x on the 600, but with the native 1200 and extenders, you've got 1680 and 2400! RF extenders don't stack, right? Anyway these are mouthwatering but I'll likely never be able to afford a big white again


----------



## tron (Feb 22, 2022)

Ok Canon let's get on with the big whites so as to see what comes next for people who are not body builders and super rich! Let's see the big zooms or smaller DO white lenses ... preferably this decade


----------



## peters (Feb 22, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I wonder if the rear metal element can be factory -removed, in order to convert RF into EF, since there are still many professional DSLR users.
> Provided these are the real pictures of the lenses.


Hm, good Idea. Though I think the demand for this could be quite low. 
I think if people invest in such lenses (my guess is 16k for the 800m and 30k for the 1200mm) its most likely that they want a new body with a high mega pixel count like the R5... I think the R5 or R3 is for wildlife and sport photography a big win over the DSLR counterparts. Especialy the 5D IV (which I still have for backup) is notable behind the R5 in my opinion =)


----------



## peters (Feb 22, 2022)

rontele7 said:


> What's the point of the 1200 f/8? You could just use the 600 f/4 with a 2X, and have a far more versatile setup. These lenses are silly, hard to believe Canon is wasting resources on these, when the RF mount is still missing a 24mm L, 35mm L, etc.


Its about Quality  
These extenders impact image quality quite a lot (depending on lense used). I have the 1,4 III and the 2x III canon extenders. I tried them in detail on the 70-200 and on my 100-400 4-5,6L IS II (which is a great lense).
Overall my finding was, that the extender barely brings a quality improvment over just using the native lense and simply scaling up. 
So this is not a silly lense


----------



## peters (Feb 22, 2022)

scyrene said:


> People keep saying just put a 2x on the 600, but with the native 1200 and extenders, you've got 1680 and 2400! RF extenders don't stack, right? Anyway these are mouthwatering but I'll likely never be able to afford a big white again


Also, extenders decrease the quality. A native 800mm lense is a lot sharper than a 2x 400m lense. 
Sometimes you can even just upscale the sharp 400mm image, instead of using the extender. Even the Canon version III extender are not that great to the image...


----------



## northlarch (Feb 22, 2022)

I also can’t help but wonder what’s up with the metal mounts, as if they’re just slapping on the RF adaptors and calling it a day. Was hoping the 400 and 600 were stopgaps. We’ll know more in a few days, but I’m more interested in the route Nikon is taking with their built-in TCs and PF lenses. Much more versatile and practical for field use without sacrificing quality.


----------



## entoman (Feb 22, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> The 400 and 600 are state of the art lens designs that followed years of a monumental development effort. No need to update when just changing the mount or adding an integrated TC. They are probably working on lens designs that actually need to be updated (300mm f 2.8?)


Agree with your first sentence, but it would be good to see updated, lighter and more compact versions of these lenses, to complement the smaller and lighter RF bodies.

I can think of plenty of other lenses that I'd prefer to be updated first though, and plenty of *new* lenses that are desirable to fill out gaps in the RF range. Particularly a stabilised compact 180mm F5.6 macro (yes I know I'm always prattling on about that, but the now discontinued non-stabilised 180mm F3.5 macro needs replacing with something more compact).


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 22, 2022)

scyrene said:


> People keep saying just put a 2x on the 600, but with the native 1200 and extenders, you've got 1680 and 2400! RF extenders don't stack, right? Anyway these are mouthwatering but I'll likely never be able to afford a big white again


I assume you can put an empty extender like you'd use with a macro lens between two extenders. It would be manual focus. Might be a likely failure point though. If an RF adapter can explore multiple extenders in a row might be vulnerable. I'd hate to be trying to find a bird on a tree at 2400. I guess something for a real specialist.


peters said:


> Also, extenders decrease the quality. A native 800mm lense is a lot sharper than a 2x 400m lense.
> Sometimes you can even just upscale the sharp 400mm image, instead of using the extender. Even the Canon version III extender are not that great to the image...


It will be interesting to see the difference between a native 800mm lens that a 2 x 400mm lens.
I use a 1.4X and 2X on a 600mm lens and both are quite sharp. Focusing speed is good on 1.4X but notably slower focussing with 2X but fine on a static bird.
A 1.4 on a 300mm 2.8 is great.
A side by side comparison might show something but I don't think it will be worth it. Better to get closer than use a longer lens. .


----------



## peters (Feb 22, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I assume you can put an empty extender like you'd use with a macro lens between two extenders. It would be manual focus. Might be a likely failure point though. If an RF adapter can explore multiple extenders in a row might be vulnerable. I'd hate to be trying to find a bird on a tree at 2400. I guess something for a real specialist.
> 
> It will be interesting to see the difference between a native 800mm lens that a 2 x 400mm lens.
> I use a 1.4X and 2X on a 600mm lens and both are quite sharp. Focusing speed is good on 1.4X but notably slower focussing with 2X but fine on a static bird.
> ...


True, closer is indeed always better. Makes the entire image often more interesting, giving it more depth.

I guess the extender game on primes works better than on zoom lenses. I heard a lot of positive things about that. Though I guess the quality difference is still there to a native lense. 
I wonder how many 1200mm lenses canon will actual sell :-D


----------



## fox40phil (Feb 22, 2022)

LSXPhotog said:


> It's a shame this isn't just an 800mm f/5.6 with a built in 1.4 Extender to make it an 1120mm f/8. I can't honestly dream of too many uses for such a long 1200mm lens, but I would love to see it being put into use.


T H I S !!!
Damn Canon...

Also those ugly silver adapters... 

But lets wait for the heavy prices!
But they won't beat the expensive Nikon 800 with 1,2TC I think (It is/was about 17-18000€!)

BUT#3: Can you guys imagine.... Canon brings niche lenses now and not 300 2.8 & 500 4.0 RFs?! Thats a crazy move I think!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 22, 2022)

In some respects the 1200mm f8L is a step backwards given the cult status of the EF 1200mm f5.6L. When I ran Panavision Europe we had two EF 1200 f5.6L lenses adapted for PL mount (but able to still be mounted EF with adaptors)
Canon reportedly only made 22 one of which they still have. One was sold at auction in Germany last year for € 500K ($560K).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 22, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> BUT#3: Can you guys imagine.... Canon brings niche lenses now and not 300 2.8 & 500 4.0 RFs?! Thats a crazy move I think!


The 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4.0 where always late and are just discount 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0. I would expect to see a 120-300 f/2.8 and 200-500 f/4.0 instead so that you pick 'one' of the £13,000 monsters.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 22, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I assume you can put an empty extender like you'd use with a macro lens between two extenders. It would be manual focus. Might be a likely failure point though. If an RF adapter can explore multiple extenders in a row might be vulnerable. I'd hate to be trying to find a bird on a tree at 2400. I guess something for a real specialist.
> 
> It will be interesting to see the difference between a native 800mm lens that a 2 x 400mm lens.
> I use a 1.4X and 2X on a 600mm lens and both are quite sharp. Focusing speed is good on 1.4X but notably slower focussing with 2X but fine on a static bird.
> ...


Yes, you can put an extension tube between two TCs, but you lose distant focus, so only useful for close up subjects.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 22, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> T H I S !!!
> Damn Canon...
> 
> Also those ugly silver adapters...
> ...


No, not crazy. Different lenses are made in different ways and in different facilities. The really big whites are pretty much hand built by a small group of experts. With EF fading, that group will be (maybe already is) looking for work. These lenses will keep them busy. Many of the lenses that forum dwellers are lusting for are higher volume and require rebuilding automated production lines which takes a bit longer.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 22, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> In some respects the 1200mm f8L is a step backwards given the cult status of the EF 1200mm f5.6L. When I ran Panavision Europe we had two EF 1200 f5.6L lenses adapted for PL mount (but able to still be mounted EF with adaptors)
> Canon reportedly only made 22 one of which they still have. One was sold at auction in Germany last year for € 500K ($560K).


If genital envy is a priority, then this may be a step backward, but I suspect the image quality will be improved over the EF 1200 and one person will be able to carry the new one. Given the rather awesome IS performance of the RF 800 f/11, I suspect that will be another area where these new lenses excel. The EF 1200 was actually a reworked FD lens and had no IS at all, so completely useless without a brutally heavy tripod. The RF 800 f/11 OTOH delivers consistently sharp images when handheld at 1/60th of a second and it only weighs a little over a kilogram. Extrapolating that performance suggests that the new 800 and 1200 lenses will be actually very usable and useful. With long lenses, IS is a big deal.


----------



## juststeve (Feb 22, 2022)

Given the current world political climate, there may be a larger market for these super superteles than photographers dwelling on web forums. Many a nation's militaries may well be standing in line for these lenses and hi Rez bodies for keeping track of their less than friendly neighbors. Were not South Korea and probably the US Army not the largest owners of Canon's 200/1.8 L?


----------



## timmy (Feb 22, 2022)

As exciting as the 1,200mm is and the incredible reach it will offer, the f8 is a deal breaker for me. The difference between f8 and f4/f5.6 max is just not a trade off I am willing to do. Exciting to see this technology though


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 23, 2022)

Tremotino said:


> Really? Will this be the BS we will read here in the future?
> 
> There is no reason to turn this site into a toxic platform either.



Apologies for the wrong tone coming across. The "whomp whomp" really leant itself to seeming like it was useless fanboy teasing. My bad. Instead, it was (also useless) speculation about the shaping of the market.

I do find it fascinating that - as the original post suggested, we might presume that the new 800mm and the new 1200mm lenses are functionally better than their teleconverted equivalents - Canon is opening up a new set of use cases that aren't easy for the competition to follow quickly.

Or, as Arbitrage notes, it could be about as likely be the case that these aren't functionally better than a 600 with one other of the TCs attached, and we'll all still be waiting for the "real" RF super teles for a few years more. I have a sense that these might be more useful, but I've been wrong about that sort of thing with some frequency.


----------



## padam (Feb 23, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> Two hugely expensive lens. I can't see Canon making much money from them. They must be a prestige loss leader.
> It will be interesting if there is much of difference image quality wise versus a 600mm 1.4 Ext / 2 Ext.
> A 1200mm is a most inflexible lens. It's very hard to find or follow anything at 1200mm a built in extender would be far more useful from that perspective.
> I won't have to worry about them. Good luck to anyone who gets one.


Provided that these are indeed variations of existing lens designs then the develop cost won't be very high and these are made with profit in mind rather than prestige, meaning they are going to make plenty of money on each one they will be selling and there will be specific use cases, where these will work better than others.
Once again the same story as with the f/11 DO telephotos. Everyone feels he has to complain on something he is not interested in. It's not like they are forcing them on anyone by not offering a 400 or a 600...


----------



## TM (Feb 23, 2022)

rontele7 said:


> What's the point of the 1200 f/8? You could just use the 600 f/4 with a 2X, and have a far more versatile setup. These lenses are silly, hard to believe Canon is wasting resources on these, when the RF mount is still missing a 24mm L, 35mm L, etc.


So we can have a 2400 f/16 with a 2X, for an equally versatile setup.  I'd love an RF 35mm f1.2/ f1.4 though!


----------



## djack41 (Feb 23, 2022)

Hmmmmm.....Looks like the RF 600mm F4 with a 1.4x and a 2x attached.


----------



## mbike999 (Feb 23, 2022)

djack41 said:


> Hmmmmm.....Looks like the RF 600mm F4 with a 1.4x and a 2x attached.


And the 800 just looks like the 400 with the 2x attached. Is this fake news?


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 23, 2022)

juststeve said:


> Given the current world political climate, there may be a larger market for these super superteles than photographers dwelling on web forums. Many a nation's militaries may well be standing in line for these lenses and hi Rez bodies for keeping track of their less than friendly neighbors. Were not South Korea and probably the US Army not the largest owners of Canon's 200/1.8 L?


Just like you, I can't see Canon producing "unusual" lenses, just hoping for a market. They already know who might buy these horribly expensive lenses. Armies, CIA, NASA, FBI etc... are already standing in line. There is also a technical reason for buying these lenses: safety distance.
Of course, also wildlife and sports professionals, or (very) rich amateurs. All those want or need extra long teles to bridge the flight or safety distance, for pictures of shy or dangerous animals or sports. And let's not forget the paparazzi, one shot can amortize the cost of the most expensive lens (Jackie O's photo, for instance).
Canon perfectly well know what they are doing!


----------



## scyrene (Feb 23, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I assume you can put an empty extender like you'd use with a macro lens between two extenders. It would be manual focus. Might be a likely failure point though. If an RF adapter can explore multiple extenders in a row might be vulnerable. I'd hate to be trying to find a bird on a tree at 2400. I guess something for a real specialist.


You probably could but I wouldn't trust the strength of that, as you say it's a weak point - I once had an extension tube on my 500L and had propped it against a bench; it fell over and sheared in half, thankfully only the tube was destroyed. Also you lose infinity focus which may or may not be an issue.

I agree 2400 would be very challenging, though I went through a period of shooting at 1400mm (500+1.4x+2x) - handheld, manual focus. Though generally only for birds that weren't moving too much, like waterfowl or a kingfisher. Image quality was a bit ropey though.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2022)

scyrene said:


> You probably could but I wouldn't trust the strength of that, as you say it's a weak point - *I once had an extension tube on my 500L and had propped it against a bench; it fell over and sheared in half,* thankfully only the tube was destroyed. Also you lose infinity focus which may or may not be an issue.
> 
> I agree 2400 would be very challenging, though I went through a period of shooting at 1400mm (500+1.4x+2x) - handheld, manual focus. Though generally only for birds that weren't moving too much, like waterfowl or a kingfisher. Image quality was a bit ropey though.


All the mounts of Canon lenses, extenders and extension tubes deliberately have a 'break away' plastic section in them to minimize damage. The thing "shearing in two" looks dramatic but it is designed to do that and be easily and cheaply replaced, it 'fails' deliberately to protect the more expensive parts of the lens and body.

I have only seen this with Canon tubes extenders and lenses, I have o experiences of third party equipment.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 23, 2022)

timmy said:


> As exciting as the 1,200mm is and the incredible reach it will offer, the f8 is a deal breaker for me. The difference between f8 and f4/f5.6 max is just not a trade off I am willing to do. Exciting to see this technology though


LOL. Apart from the $100k+ EF 1200 and a couple of bespoke lenses made for Middle Eastern sheikhs, what other way of getting f/5.6 is possible at this focla length? You could mount a 2x extender on the semi-mythical Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 but that's a monster and only gets you to 1000mm. A deal breaker, honestly!


----------



## scyrene (Feb 23, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> All the mounts of Canon lenses, extenders and extension tubes deliberately have a 'break away' plastic section in them to minimize damage. The thing "shearing in two" looks dramatic but it is designed to do that and be easily and cheaply replaced, it 'fails' deliberately to protect the more expensive parts of the lens and body.
> 
> I have only seen this with Canon tubes extenders and lenses, I have o experiences of third party equipment.


Makes sense! I was relieved and chastened. It was a third party tube though, so whether by design or cheapness I don't know.


----------



## dolina (Feb 23, 2022)

Nikkon has a more creative approach to their new Z mount super tele primes







NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S with a built-in extender! What a dream lens to have if you're into sports! Flick of a switch and you get a 560mm f/4 with 5.5 stop of IS!

If I was shooting sports professionally I'd ask my boss to buy this for me!





I do wonder if it was possible to have a built-in TC that has an option for 1.4x or 2.0x?

It reduce lens SKUs from 3 to 1 and would surely help in increasing the production volume of Canon/Nikon/Sony's 400/2.8 by a factor of 3 if they did this. Many would be so inclined to buy one even when it approaches $20,000. Margins would also improve further making.

With a flick of a switch this theoretical super tele prime priced nearing $20,000 would become

- 400/2.8 without TC
- 560/4.0 with 1.4x TC
- 800/5.6 with 2.0x TC

I wouldn't mind it weighing about 6.6lbs (3kg).


----------



## dolina (Feb 24, 2022)

Canon announces $17K 800mm F5.6, $20K 1200mm F8 lenses for RF mount​
3140 g (6.92 lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm






3340g (7.36lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm






My guess was right! It's $17,000 or more! lol


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm surprised to see these. They seem to be no more than the shorter lens and a teleconvertor in the same housing, yet at a several thousand dollar premium?
> 
> If I understand correctly, I'm really appalled.


The MTF's suggest performance is a little better than the shorter lens with the 2x TC, but the 'improvements' are minor enough that I suspect it simply means the internal TC optics are optimized specifically for those lenses' optical designs, rather than being generic for use with several lenses.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 25, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> You had me up to that point.
> I can't see why Canon shouldn't offer more expensive versions with built in teleconverters.
> There is so much convenience to not have to take the lens off to add and remove teleconverters.


My point was that these were low-development-cost easy launches to fill the catalog without taxing the product development team and budget. Not that your desired lens shouldn't be developed, but that these were "gimmees" beyond the constrained choices for actual new lens designs.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 25, 2022)

Pricing is bizarre. RF600 + 2x TC is $13600, instead of $20k for the same lens without the sbility to detach the TC. The reviews will be looking carefully at whether the 1200 has meaningful advnatages in performance, weight, and size for the eye-watering 50% price premium. (RF800 less so but still painful).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Pricing is bizarre. RF600 + 2x TC is $13600, instead of $20k for the same lens without the sbility to detach the TC. The reviews will be looking carefully at whether the 1200 has meaningful advnatages in performance, weight, and size for the eye-watering 50% price premium. (RF800 less so but still painful).


Except for possible AF performance advantages (unknown but probable because a TC forces a reduction in AF speed, at least on EF lenses), the main advantage I see is that these lenses with an internal TC also take an external TC with no loss of infinity focus.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Except for possible AF performance advantages (unknown but probable because a TC forces a reduction in AF speed, at least on EF lenses), the main advantage I see is that these lenses with an internal TC also take an external TC with no loss of infinity focus.


Did you notice the slower AF with your 1D? With the 5D series, it was definitely slower.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Did you notice the slower AF with your 1D? With the 5D series, it was definitely slower.


Not really, actually. I trust that it was, but slower than really fast is still pretty darn fast.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 27, 2022)

As I noted in another thread, the bizarro off the charts pricing is probably a signal of price increases ahead. At least $1000 for the RF 400 and 600. Maybe more. Putting my money where my mouth is, I just arranged to buy one at what will soon be below market prices. These are inflation hedge assets.


----------



## JohnC (Feb 27, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> As I noted in another thread, the bizarro off the charts pricing is probably a signal of price increases ahead. At least $1000 for the RF 400 and 600. Maybe more. Putting my money where my mouth is, I just arranged to buy one at what will soon be below market prices. These are inflation hedge assets.


Good luck. I’ve had a 600/4 on order for about 3 months. Still waiting.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 27, 2022)

JohnC said:


> Good luck. I’ve had a 600/4 on order for about 3 months. Still waiting.


Understood. I’d have ordered a 400 from BH if in stock but decided to get used for a $1000 discount. No sales tax either way.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 27, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> As I noted in another thread, the bizarro off the charts pricing is probably a signal of price increases ahead. At least $1000 for the RF 400 and 600. Maybe more. Putting my money where my mouth is, I just arranged to buy one at what will soon be below market prices. These are inflation hedge assets.


When they were first introduced the EF 800 f/5.6 IS was more expensive than the EF 600 f/4 IS.
A few revisions later the EF 600 f/4 caught up in price.
I could see the same thing happening again.
The $4K USD price increase over the EF 800 f/5.6 is tough to swallow.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 27, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> When they were first introduced the EF 800 f/5.6 IS was more expensive than the EF 600 f/4 IS.
> A few revisions later the EF 600 f/4 caught up in price.
> I could see the same thing happening again.
> The $4K USD price increase over the EF 800 f/5.6 is tough to swallow.


I would have expected the EF 800 to RF 800 price increase to correspond to the 400 II to 400 iii increase due to proportional tech advancement.


----------

