# Lensrentals.com: Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM Teardown



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 24, 2020)

> By Roger Cicala Published August 24, 2020
> *Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM at Lensrentals.com starting at $37 for a 7 day renta*l
> 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.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 24, 2020)

There may be diffraction with the R5, but with the R6 it should hardly be noticable.


----------



## SV (Aug 24, 2020)

That was surprisingly fun to read - thanks for the insights and laughs,...


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 24, 2020)

Oof...next time take the trip, THEN take it apart....


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 24, 2020)

Like to see them tear down R5/R6


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 24, 2020)

"Internet acceptable images"? This is a damn modest standard.


----------



## AJ (Aug 24, 2020)

Not exactly a vote of confidence for this lens. And this comes a few days after we learn that its sister 800/11 doesn't perform much better than a zoom with a 2x TC mounted on it.


----------



## Colorado (Aug 24, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> "Internet acceptable images"? This is a damn modest standard.


I think the capabilities far surpass that modest standard. Here's some samples of the 600mm + the x1.4 extender. I was pretty impressed considering the weight of the lens:






RF 600 + RF 1.4x initial samples w/crops


So far, I'm impressed with the performance of the RF 1.4x TC on the RF 600. The results are so much better than cropping, there's almost no point i...



www.fredmiranda.com


----------



## melgross (Aug 24, 2020)

Actually, I’ve now seen a number of reviews of this and the 800. After downloading a number of full size RAW images, I have to agree with the reviewers. These are very good lenses. Don’t believe some of the crap you may be reading. The images look short and contrasts. In fact, they’re surprisingly goo.

Canon made some smart moves here. By limiting these lenses to the one f11 aperture, they could optimize the results for just one, and not have to use extra elements in an effort to balance performance across several f stops. As for f11 being in diffraction. Well, not quite. F11 is pretty respectable for these lengths, and allows for very good imaging.

any criticism needs to allow for the size, weight and particularly the price. When considering the value, you need to look at whether anything is comparable, and you won’t find anything.


----------



## Tony Bennett (Aug 25, 2020)

I bought the 800 and love it so far. It does exactly what I bought it for, capturing wildlife. It reaches a distance I couldn't afford to be in before. A 400, 600, 800 lens never made any sense for me and my business. They were too expensive and didn't help me make money. Even the 100-400 was always put on the back burner because I always found something else to spend the money on. 

I knew the 800 wasn't for capturing sports indoor or capturing a wedding. The price was right for me.


----------



## jcfalconer (Aug 25, 2020)

Roger,
Maybe next time you should test the lens BEFORE you take it apart and put it back together! 
I hope we get to see some alligator photos soon.


----------



## analoggrotto (Aug 25, 2020)

just terrified of that 6 meter / 20 feet minimum focus distance

this might be worthy of renting


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 25, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> just terrified of that 6 meter / 20 feet minimum focus distance
> 
> this might be worthy of renting



600 is just under 15'. So if you need to shoot at 800mm a lot between 15' and 20', the 600 with 1.4x (840mm @ f/16) is pretty good.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 25, 2020)

melgross said:


> Actually, I’ve now seen a number of reviews of this and the 800. After downloading a number of full size RAW images, I have to agree with the reviewers. These are very good lenses. Don’t believe some of the crap you may be reading. The images look short and contrasts. In fact, they’re surprisingly goo.



I'm going to assume you meant "good" not "goo" 

Up front I'll say I have no interest in this lens...but it sounds like Canon decided to build a lens that does exactly ONE thing very well, and this is the result. For those who happen to need that one thing, it looks like a great deal.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 25, 2020)

Colorado said:


> I think the capabilities far surpass that modest standard.



Looking at best selling monitors in Amazon & web statistics I've found on Google, I would take Internet acceptable to be 2MP after crop. That's enough for a 4x6 print, the common size for several decades. I would expect every EF & RF lens to surpass this standard.


----------



## analoggrotto (Aug 25, 2020)

"just take 4K video with your phone, its the same thing"


----------



## analoggrotto (Aug 25, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> 600 is just under 15'. So if you need to shoot at 800mm a lot between 15' and 20', the 600 with 1.4x (840mm @ f/16) is pretty good.



My bad, I cited the MFD for 800mm.

It's definitely worth renting, where I usually just buy as far as I can afford and am automatically happy with practically everything Canon.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> 600 is just under 15'. So if you need to shoot at 800mm a lot between 15' and 20', the 600 with 1.4x (840mm @ f/16) is pretty good.


Adding the 1.4xTC to the 600mm f/11 is pretty much a waste of time for increasing resolution. It pushes it too far in to the diffraction-limited region and adds lens aberration: see





Effects of diffraction and R5/R6 sensor on resolution of f/5.6, f/7.1 and f/11 lenses and TCs


Another of my geek articles, which does have some implications for actual use. What I do here is to calculate the contributions of diffraction and sensor Mpx size (R5 vs R6) to the resolving power of the 400mm f/5.6 and 500mm f/7.1 zooms and the 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes and how resolution is...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## TMHKR (Aug 25, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Looking at best selling monitors in Amazon & web statistics I've found on Google, I would take Internet acceptable to be 2MP after crop. That's enough for a 4x6 print, the common size for several decades. I would expect every EF & RF lens to surpass this standard.


Vast majority of monitors today are 1920x1080 (~2.07 Mpx)
And if we assume one shoots 3:2 aspect, it also includes black borders on the sides.
In this case, image sharpness comes mainly from the lens resolving power.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 25, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Adding the 1.4xTC to the 600mm f/11 is pretty much a waste of time for increasing resolution. It pushes it too far in to the diffraction-limited region and adds lens aberration: see
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 1.4x on my 600 resolves fairly well. See the link someone gave above to my post on FM Forums about the combo. I don’t doubt that the 100-500 with the 1.4x will be better (I should receive my copy Friday, fingers crossed), but on the R at least, the 600 + 1.4x is better than I expected.


----------



## JordanCS13 (Aug 25, 2020)

AJ said:


> Not exactly a vote of confidence for this lens. And this comes a few days after we learn that its sister 800/11 doesn't perform much better than a zoom with a 2x TC mounted on it.



See, you are phrasing this as a negative, but what I see is "This $900 lens outperforms the $2200 100-400mm with the $430 2x TC ($2630 total)." That seems like a win for a consumer lens with a lot of reach in an affordable, compact package.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> The 1.4x on my 600 resolves fairly well. See the link someone gave above to my post on FM Forums about the combo. I don’t doubt that the 100-500 with the 1.4x will be better (I should receive my copy Friday, fingers crossed), but on the R at least, the 600 + 1.4x is better than I expected.


I had seen your post when browsing FM. Adding the 1.4xTC will give you higher magnification but little or no more resolution, depending on the number of megapixels on your sensor. You could try an experiment to check for yourself. Take the same scene with and without the 1.4xTC, then upresolve the bare lens image using decent software like Topaz Gigapixel or maybe even Photoshop. On the lower resolution R6, there may be a very modest increase in resolution but with the R5 you won't see it. If you don't believe my calculations, take a look at MTFs measured by ePhotozine for lenses on the the 5DSR. As they stop down from f/11 to f/16, the MTFs drop on average by a factor of 1.25. So, an increase of 1.4x in focal length on adding the TC is accompanied a decrease of 1.25x to give a net gain of 12% in resolution if the TC doesn't add any aberration - and it will add aberration.
So, if you are thinking of shelling out $500 or so on a TC for the f/11 lenses, save your money and buy some cheaper software instead to magnify your images digitally. I am saying this for the narrow f/11 lenses where diffraction is all important, the TCs will be fine on wide aperture lenses.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> just terrified of that 6 meter / 20 feet minimum focus distance
> 
> this might be worthy of renting


Over on DPR there is thread about trading MFD for Infinity focus. I think you gain 25% less MFD (15'), lose 1 stop of light, and max focus is 80' - with the 800mm lens.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> Vast majority of monitors today are 1920x1080 (~2.07 Mpx)
> And if we assume one shoots 3:2 aspect, it also includes black borders on the sides.
> In this case, image sharpness comes mainly from the lens resolving power.


Vast majority sold today, probably true. Vast majority in use - well not when I googled it based on web stats, it is considerably lower. A lot of (older) smartphones don't do that resolution...


----------



## SteB1 (Aug 25, 2020)

I'm not sure what to think about these lenses. The perspective I'm looking at them is from that of the wildlife/nature photographer. Most such photographers are probably already going to have a 400mm or similar option. So to me the most interesting question is how these compare to a 400mm option (I'm talking about f5.6 not f2.8) and a teleconverter, or extender in Canon language. Either 1.4x for the 600mm version and 2x for the 800mm version. Luckily on The Digital Picture both lenses have been added to the comparison tool. It was a bit disappointing. The 1.4 extender added to a any of the Canon 400mm f5.6 lenses is much better optically than the 600mm f11 and provides 40mm more focal length, gives f8, rather an f11, plus leaves you with a 400mm 5.6. A similar story with the 2x extender. So if you've already got one of the 400mm f5.6 lenses, I think you'd be better of carrying one of them with extenders.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 25, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I'm not sure what to think about these lenses. The perspective I'm looking at them is from that of the wildlife/nature photographer. Most such photographers are probably already going to have a 400mm or similar option. So to me the most interesting question is how these compare to a 400mm option (I'm talking about f5.6 not f2.8) and a teleconverter, or extender in Canon language. Either 1.4x for the 600mm version and 2x for the 800mm version. Luckily on The Digital Picture both lenses have been added to the comparison tool. It was a bit disappointing. The 1.4 extender added to a any of the Canon 400mm f5.6 lenses is much better optically than the 600mm f11 and provides 40mm more focal length, gives f8, rather an f11, plus leaves you with a 400mm 5.6. A similar story with the 2x extender. So if you've already got one of the 400mm f5.6 lenses, I think you'd be better of carrying one of them with extenders.


400mm + 1.4X = 560mm. But generally agree with your conclusions.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I'm not sure what to think about these lenses. The perspective I'm looking at them is from that of the wildlife/nature photographer. Most such photographers are probably already going to have a 400mm or similar option. So to me the most interesting question is how these compare to a 400mm option (I'm talking about f5.6 not f2.8) and a teleconverter, or extender in Canon language. Either 1.4x for the 600mm version and 2x for the 800mm version. Luckily on The Digital Picture both lenses have been added to the comparison tool. It was a bit disappointing. The 1.4 extender added to a any of the Canon 400mm f5.6 lenses is much better optically than the 600mm f11 and provides 40mm more focal length, gives f8, rather an f11, plus leaves you with a 400mm 5.6. A similar story with the 2x extender. So if you've already got one of the 400mm f5.6 lenses, I think you'd be better of carrying one of them with extenders.


I don't know what body you are using to make the comparisons. The 5DSR is the most appropriate comparison on TDP for the R5 as they have similar output sizes for the TDP charts. The 800 f/11 is actually quite similar to the 2xTC on the 500/5.6 prime. As I have an excellent 100-400mm II and a set of TCs, I am sticking with those for my on-order R5 - zoom and 1m mfd, as well as 400/5.6 for BIF.








Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## Dragon (Aug 25, 2020)

DPR just put up samples for the 600 and went to the opposite extreme for SS and ISO compared to what they did for the 800. Both lenses are decently sharp for f/11 and have minimal CA, so they should clean up quite well with proper processing. I suspect the biggest problem many buyers who are buying on price will encounter is the atmospheric challenge of getting decent distance shots with a long lens, no matter how good the glass is. Personally, I am looking forward to see how much the IBIS in the R5 improves the handling of my 1000mm Nikon mirror lens.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 25, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> Over on DPR there is thread about trading MFD for Infinity focus. I think you gain 25% less MFD (15'), lose 1 stop of light, and max focus is 80' - with the 800mm lens.


The one stop of light would be the issue.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2020)

And this is what TDP writes about using extenders on the 600/11








Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens Review


Is the Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!




www.the-digital-picture.com





"The addition of a 1.4x Extender to the RF 600 creates an attractive 840mm IS lens. Extend the focal length without increasing the aperture opening, and the effective aperture is reduced — by 1-stop with the 1.4x mounted. Few are going to find f/16 attractive for most 840mm uses with diffraction impact showing even on lower-resolution R-series cameras. Magnifying the image and adding optics to the path are not helpful from an image quality perspective. That said, in bright light, the 840mm results from this lens can be usable.
The addition of a 2x Extender creates an impressive-sounding 1200mm focal length lens. In this case, the aperture is reduced 2-stops to a dauntingly-narrow f/22. Autofocusing that combination is a superpower of some R-series cameras, including the Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6. Adding the 2x extender to the optical formula significantly degrades image quality — here is the comparison. The RF 2x adds a small amount of barrel distortion to the image and magnifies (blurs?) the lateral CA. While this combination works, I recommend getting closer without the 2x mounted."


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 25, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I had seen your post when browsing FM. Adding the 1.4xTC will give you higher magnification but little or no more resolution, depending on the number of megapixels on your sensor. You could try an experiment to check for yourself. Take the same scene with and without the 1.4xTC, then upresolve the bare lens image using decent software like Topaz Gigapixel or maybe even Photoshop. On the lower resolution R6, there may be a very modest increase in resolution but with the R5 you won't see it. If you don't believe my calculations, take a look at MTFs measured by ePhotozine for lenses on the the 5DSR. As they stop down from f/11 to f/16, the MTFs drop on average by a factor of 1.25. So, an increase of 1.4x in focal length on adding the TC is accompanied a decrease of 1.25x to give a net gain of 12% in resolution if the TC doesn't add any aberration - and it will add aberration.
> So, if you are thinking of shelling out $500 or so on a TC for the f/11 lenses, save your money and buy some cheaper software instead to magnify your images digitally. I am saying this for the narrow f/11 lenses where diffraction is all important, the TCs will be fine on wide aperture lenses.



I'll try it for sure. Do you think the unusual f/11 lens design (DO + fewer elements + odd element placement) could change the way these lenses resolve with a TC?


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 25, 2020)

AlanF said:


> And this is what TDP writes about using extenders on the 600/11
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not surprised the 2x did not yield great results – the RF 2x has already been reported to be no better than the EF 2x III, whereas the 1.4x is an improvement over the latest EF 1.4x.

FWIW, I bought the 1.4x for the RF 100-500 I have on order – I've been messing around with using it on the 600 in the meantime. Even if there are modest resolutions gains with the 1.4x on my R+600, the price of the TC wouldn't have made sense at about 70% of the price of the lens.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I'll try it for sure. Do you think the unusual f/11 lens design (DO + fewer elements + odd element placement) could change the way these lenses resolve with a TC?


I doubt it. The f/11 lenses are nice for what they are and will have many happy users. I find TCs less and less useful as the resolution of my camera sensors have increased increasing the demands on lens IQ and the negative effects of diffraction. The TCs are really overpriced too.


----------



## melgross (Aug 25, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I'm going to assume you meant "good" not "goo"
> 
> Up front I'll say I have no interest in this lens...but it sounds like Canon decided to build a lens that does exactly ONE thing very well, and this is the result. For those who happen to need that one thing, it looks like a great deal.


Sometimes, after I check my post before I upload it, it’s fine, but later when I read what was posted, it’s not. I have that problem with a small number of sites. I don’t know where the problem is coming from. This post is perfect now, we’ll see if it remains so.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2020)

melgross said:


> Sometimes, after I check my post before I upload it, it’s fine, but later when I read what was posted, it’s not. I have that problem with a small number of sites. I don’t know where the problem is coming from. This post is perfect now, we’ll see if it remains so.


I have the same problem, but it's not the site, it's my sight - not as good as it used to be.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 25, 2020)

JordanCS13 said:


> See, you are phrasing this as a negative, but what I see is "This $900 lens outperforms the $2200 100-400mm with the $430 2x TC ($2630 total)." That seems like a win for a consumer lens with a lot of reach in an affordable, compact package.



I've never seen an image come out of a 100-400L II w/2X that looks even remotely close to a keeper.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 25, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> The 1.4x on my 600 resolves fairly well. See the link someone gave above to my post on FM Forums about the combo. I don’t doubt that the 100-500 with the 1.4x will be better (I should receive my copy Friday, fingers crossed), but on the R at least, the 600 + 1.4x is better than I expected.



You think the 100-500 is shipping Friday?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I'm not sure what to think about these lenses. The perspective I'm looking at them is from that of the wildlife/nature photographer. Most such photographers are probably already going to have a 400mm or similar option. So to me the most interesting question is how these compare to a 400mm option (I'm talking about f5.6 not f2.8) and a teleconverter, or extender in Canon language. Either 1.4x for the 600mm version and 2x for the 800mm version. Luckily on The Digital Picture both lenses have been added to the comparison tool. It was a bit disappointing. The 1.4 extender added to a any of the Canon 400mm f5.6 lenses is much better optically than the 600mm f11 and provides 40mm more focal length, gives f8, rather an f11, plus leaves you with a 400mm 5.6. A similar story with the 2x extender. So if you've already got one of the 400mm f5.6 lenses, I think you'd be better of carrying one of them with extenders.


The EF 400mm f/5.6L has been discontinued.


----------



## SteB1 (Aug 25, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The EF 400mm f/5.6L has been discontinued.


I still see it for sale new. However, this wasn't my point. I was clearly referring to already existing Canon wildlife and nature photographers who already have a 400mm f5.6 lens (not necessarily the prime). When I compared the lens on the comparison tool on The Digital Picture I included the mk1 100-400mm, even though I use the mkII version. So the point I was making is whether it would be worth a pre-existing Canon wildlife photographer getting one of these lenses, or just using the 400mm lens they already have with an adapter and an extender. A 2x extender on a 400mm f5.6, whether the prime or one of the zooms will give an 800mm f11 and a 1.4x extender would give a 640mm f8.


----------



## SteB1 (Aug 26, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I don't know what body you are using to make the comparisons. The 5DSR is the most appropriate comparison on TDP for the R5 as they have similar output sizes for the TDP charts. The 800 f/11 is actually quite similar to the 2xTC on the 500/5.6 prime. As I have an excellent 100-400mm II and a set of TCs, I am sticking with those for my on-order R5 - zoom and 1m mfd, as well as 400/5.6 for BIF.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I used the 5DSR body on the TDP comparison as the resolution was similar to the R5. I agree with the other points and of course the MFD will be much better.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 26, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> You think the 100-500 is shipping Friday?



Starts shipping Thursday the 27th with free overnight shipping.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 26, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I've never seen an image come out of a 100-400L II w/2X that looks even remotely close to a keeper.



I had bad luck with even the vIII 1.4x on 100-400 II the 5DsR. It made the IS perform poorly enough that I would get maybe one shot in 5 that was perfectly sharp. Of course I could have raised the ISO, but I don't care for high-ISO landscapes so much with the 5DsR noise levels. I think a lot of the reports of usability with the 100-400 II and the TCs are from high-ISO bird shooters and/or tripod shooters.


----------



## Eclipsed (Aug 26, 2020)

Dragon said:


> DPR just put up samples for the 600 and went to the opposite extreme for SS and ISO compared to what they did for the 800. Both lenses are decently sharp for f/11 and have minimal CA, so they should clean up quite well with proper processing. I suspect the biggest problem many buyers who are buying on price will encounter is the atmospheric challenge of getting decent distance shots with a long lens, no matter how good the glass is. Personally, I am looking forward to see how much the IBIS in the R5 improves the handling of my 1000mm Nikon mirror lens.


I’m troubled that IBIS in my R5 is providing no discernible effect on my Questar 700 lens. Unlike my former Nikon Z6.
Does impressively well at 200 with a decoupled RF 70-200


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I had bad luck with even the vIII 1.4x on 100-400 II the 5DsR. It made the IS perform poorly enough that I would get maybe one shot in 5 that was perfectly sharp. Of course I could have raised the ISO, but I don't care for high-ISO landscapes so much with the 5DsR noise levels. I think a lot of the reports of usability with the 100-400 II and the TCs are from high-ISO bird shooters and/or tripod shooters.


The 5DSR + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII is part of my standard kit for hand holding BIF and static birds at low iso without a tripod and I have posted many here. May be something wrong with the IS of your lens? Here are a couple of shots, a Kestrel and Green Heron,and they are typical, not rare keepers.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 26, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The 5DSR + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII is part of my standard kit for hand holding BIF and static birds at low iso without a tripod and I have posted many here. May be something wrong with the IS of your lens? Here are a couple of shots, a Kestrel and Green Heron,and they are typical, not rare keepers.
> 
> View attachment 192424
> View attachment 192425



I haven’t owned the combo for a while — returned the 1.4x and eventually sold it all in the typical/cyclical system changes I’ve gone through. Just always seemed sharper to crop instead, so I didn’t want to be bothered with the hassle of a TC — maybe I should have tried doing the +/- calibration on it.

As for the IS, I was often shooting last-light on the mountains while trying to hang onto ISO 100. Just not enough light for it to keep up.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I haven’t owned the combo for a while — returned the 1.4x and eventually sold it all in the typical/cyclical system changes I’ve gone through. Just always seemed sharper to crop instead, so I didn’t want to be bothered with the hassle of a TC — maybe I should have tried doing the +/- calibration on it.
> 
> As for the IS, I was often shooting last-light on the mountains while trying to hang onto ISO 100. Just not enough light for it to keep up.


AFMA calibration is essential when using the TCs. Mine on the 5DSR changes the bare lens by 6 units.


----------



## melgross (Aug 26, 2020)

I think people are making some mistakes here. Canon has numerous lenses. Many are superb telescope. They gave been known for that for many years. The complaint used to be that they were not great at shorter focal lengths.

with these new lenses, Canon is trying something new. A very light, inexpensive series of lenses that also pretty inexpensive. From what I can tell, they have succeeded. Dispute the expected cry’s about how crappy the lens must be, it’s actually quite good, as reported by pretty much everyone who has actually used it. 

is it too slow for lower light levels without a tripod? Yes. Does it focus as closely as some other, much more expensive lenses? No. Is it as tack sharp as some far more expensive, and heavier lenses? Not quite.

so what? From photos I’ve seen, from full size RAW files, it’s pretty sharp. Contrasty enough (fewer elements actually help here). And generally, most people aren’t going to focus closer than 15 feet with a 600, or 20 feet with an 800.
overall, these lenses offer an opportunity for many people who can’t afford much more expensive lenses, and who cant, or won’t, carry much heavier lenses.

so, really guys, stop nitpicking here. You haven’t used these yet, so wait until you do.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 26, 2020)

melgross said:


> I think people are making some mistakes here. Canon has numerous lenses. Many are superb telescope. They gave been known for that for many years. The complaint used to be that they were not great at shorter focal lengths.
> 
> with these new lenses, Canon is trying something new. A very light, inexpensive series of lenses that also pretty inexpensive. From what I can tell, they have succeeded. Dispute the expected cry’s about how crappy the lens must be, it’s actually quite good, as reported by pretty much everyone who has actually used it.
> 
> ...


You are right. Heck, I have an old 400mm Mamiya/Sekor lens that has a 19' minimum focus distance. People who expect on par performance (even close to the same performance) with multi-thousand $ lenses are being silly. They are very inexpensive lenses at those focal lengths.


----------



## Dragon (Aug 26, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> I’m troubled that IBIS in my R5 is providing no discernible effect on my Questar 700 lens. Unlike my former Nikon Z6.
> Does impressively well at 200 with a decoupled RF 70-200


I assume you did set the focal length for the Questar (and is it actually 700mm or just somewhere near?).


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 26, 2020)

AlanF said:


> AFMA calibration is essential when using the TCs. Mine on the 5DSR changes the bare lens by 6 units.



Certainly won’t be missing that DSLR technique with the RF 1.4x and 100-500


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2020)

melgross said:


> I think people are making some mistakes here. Canon has numerous lenses. Many are superb telescope. They gave been known for that for many years. The complaint used to be that they were not great at shorter focal lengths.
> 
> with these new lenses, Canon is trying something new. A very light, inexpensive series of lenses that also pretty inexpensive. From what I can tell, they have succeeded. Dispute the expected cry’s about how crappy the lens must be, it’s actually quite good, as reported by pretty much everyone who has actually used it.
> 
> ...


I think that these lenses are a great idea and there will be many happy buyers. But, I guess, you are not a nature photographer because we do often need to focus close up as well as far distant - everything from small birds to insects - and frequently need to do it without changing lenses.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 26, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I think that these lenses are a great idea and there will be many happy buyers. But, I guess, you are not a nature photographer because we do often need to focus close up as well as far distant - everything from small birds to insects - and frequently need to do it without changing lenses.



Or they are a *casual* nature photographer without an extra $12K and a sherpa.

Even the 100-500 plus 1.4x is $3,200.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Or they are a *casual* nature photographer without an extra $12K and a sherpa.
> 
> Even the 100-500 plus 1.4x is $3,200.


There are lenses other than $10k big whites or the 100-500mm. I have used and can recommend the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mms and 150-600mms, which are in the same price range as the 800 f/11 and have very short mfds. I shall be using with my R5 my 100-400mm II (which you can pick up used) or my Sigma 150-600mm C. Most of my best shots of small birds are taken about 4m away, and dragonflies and butterflies much closer.


----------



## Eclipsed (Aug 27, 2020)

Dragon said:


> I assume you did set the focal length for the Questar (and is it actually 700mm or just somewhere near?).


Yes. I’ve consulted Canon and not yet resolved.


----------



## melgross (Aug 27, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I think that these lenses are a great idea and there will be many happy buyers. But, I guess, you are not a nature photographer because we do often need to focus close up as well as far distant - everything from small birds to insects - and frequently need to do it without changing lenses.


I’ve done a great deal of nature photography over the decades. It depends on what you’re photographing. For most things, these minimum focus distances are just fine. But it’s like anything else. No lens has everything. If you have a 400 with you, and you need an 600 or 800, are you going to fault the lens for not having these focal lengths? I hope not. Same thing here. So it may not focus quite as closely as some others.

Spend several times as much to get a lens that focuses a few feet closer, if you don’t mind the extra size and weight that is. How many time do people miss photos because they have the wrong lens, or it’s too heavy to take everywhere? Much more often than this not focusing another five feet closer.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 27, 2020)

melgross said:


> I’ve done a great deal of nature photography over the decades. It depends on what you’re photographing. For most things, these minimum focus distances are just fine. But it’s like anything else. No lens has everything. If you have a 400 with you, and you need an 600 or 800, are you going to fault the lens for not having these focal lengths? I hope not. Same thing here. So it may not focus quite as closely as some others.
> 
> Spend several times as much to get a lens that focuses a few feet closer, if you don’t mind the extra size and weight that is. How many time do people miss photos because they have the wrong lens, or it’s too heavy to take everywhere? Much more often than this not focusing another five feet closer.


I go out photographing birds and small creatures daily and for these common subjects an mfd of 15-20 feet can be hopeless. As I have written a few posts above, you can buy great telephoto zooms that cost about the same as an 800mm f/11, of similar weight, and focus down to 3 or 4 feet. A $10,000+ 800mm f/5.6 is a very specialised lens and so is an 800mm f/11.


----------



## melgross (Aug 27, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I go out photographing birds and small creatures daily and for these common subjects an mfd of 15-20 feet can be hopeless. As I have written a few posts above, you can buy great telephoto zooms that cost about the same as an 800mm f/11, of similar weight, and focus down to 3 or 4 feet. A $10,000+ 800mm f/5.6 is a very specialised lens and so is an 800mm f/11.


I’ve tried some of those zooms, and no, they’re pretty bad. One problem is thatvtheyre particularly bad as you get closer. Very expensive long lenses, with their sophisticated focusing groups, do much better.

look, these lenses are compromises. But they’re great compromises.


----------



## Dragon (Aug 27, 2020)

melgross said:


> I’ve tried some of those zooms, and no, they’re pretty bad. One problem is thatvtheyre particularly bad as you get closer. Very expensive long lenses, with their sophisticated focusing groups, do much better.
> 
> look, these lenses are compromises. But they’re great compromises.


For those looking for close-ups, slap a 500D diopter on the front of that 600 f/11 and you might get some cool shots.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 27, 2020)

melgross said:


> I’ve tried some of those zooms, and no, they’re pretty bad. One problem is thatvtheyre particularly bad as you get closer. Very expensive long lenses, with their sophisticated focusing groups, do much better.
> 
> look, these lenses are compromises. But they’re great compromises.


I shoot regularly near and far with telephoto lenses ranging from very sharp expensive primes to lower priced zooms and can always get sharp shots. For about $2000, you can get some spectacular zoom lenses. The Canon 100-400mm II is really sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is used by some of the best bird photographers. If you think the f/11s are going to be sharper, just look at the Digital Picture comparison of the 600mm/f11 with the Canon 100-400mm zoom at 400mm or 560mm f/8 with a 1.4xTC and the Sony zoom at 600mm/f6.3









Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com













Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com













Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Also my copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm is sharper than my 100-400mm II at 560mm. So, I am puzzled why you find the zooms pretty bad.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2020)

Dragon said:


> For those looking for close-ups, slap a 500D diopter on the front of that 600 f/11 and you might get some cool shots.


A 500D is designed for lenses up to 300mm. If it were to work on the 600/11, it would give a 273mm f/5 lens, with a minimum focal distance of round about 2m or 79", which is not exactly a close-up lens (calculated from the standard lens equations). The Canon 100-400/500 zooms will get down to half that distance.


----------



## melgross (Aug 28, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I shoot regularly near and far with telephoto lenses ranging from very sharp expensive primes to lower priced zooms and can always get sharp shots. For about $2000, you can get some spectacular zoom lenses. The Canon 100-400mm II is really sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is used by some of the best bird photographers. If you think the f/11s are going to be sharper, just look at the Digital Picture comparison of the 600mm/f11 with the Canon 100-400mm zoom at 400mm or 560mm f/8 with a 1.4xTC and the Sony zoom at 600mm/f6.3
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’ve found a number of inexpensive zooms to be bad. I’ve found them to be really bad with converters. I’ve found expensive Canon zooms with Canon converters to be pretty good, but not as good as the zoom itself.

but the mistake you guys continue to make here is that these are very light as well as being inexpensive. But neither of the combos will get you to 800mm. I’m not interested in looking at charts and crap. I’ve looked at the full sized RAW images from a number of people on YouTube, and they look great. It’s interesting that everyone I’ve read who have actually used these lenses give them a thumbs up, but those who haven’t can’t seem to stop criticizing them.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2020)

melgross said:


> I’ve found a number of inexpensive zooms to be bad. I’ve found them to be really bad with converters. I’ve found expensive Canon zooms with Canon converters to be pretty good, but not as good as the zoom itself.
> 
> but the mistake you guys continue to make here is that these are very light as well as being inexpensive. But neither of the combos will get you to 800mm. I’m not interested in looking at charts and crap. I’ve looked at the full sized RAW images from a number of people on YouTube, and they look great. It’s interesting that everyone I’ve read who have actually used these lenses give them a thumbs up, but those who haven’t can’t seem to stop criticizing them.


I have started two threads about the f/11 lenses and have written several other posts to analyse their pros and cons. I have consistently written that there will be many happy users of these lenses - they do have their places. As for your statement that neither of the Canon zoom combinations will get you to 800: 2x400mm = 800mm, 2x500mm = 1000mm. Both the Canon zooms will get you there! Or does your disdain for charts apply to arithmetic as well?

If you want the real stuff and not charts, here is a cracking shot posted on Fredmiranda of a dragonfly in flight captured on an R5 with the el cheapo Sigma 100-400 https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1656877/30#15327941 - and that's a real close up. These cheap zooms are optically excellent.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 28, 2020)

Tha


AlanF said:


> I have started two threads about the f/11 lenses and have written several other posts to analyse their pros and cons. I have consistently written that there will be many happy users of these lenses - they do have their places. As for your statement that neither of the Canon zoom combinations will get you to 800: 2x400mm = 800mm, 2x500mm = 1000mm. Both the Canon zooms will get you there! Or does your disdain for charts apply to arithmetic as well?
> 
> If you want the real stuff and not charts, here is a cracking shot posted on Fredmiranda of a dragonfly in flight captured on an R5 with the el cheapo Sigma 100-400 https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1656877/30#15327941 - and that's a real close up. These cheap zooms are optically excellent.


Thanks Alan,

I found Sigma 100-400 to be quite slow focusing for me... Canon 100-400 II L beats the little Sigma hands down in AF speed, bokeh and colour reproduction department.
here is what the person that took that “cracking shot” has to say:

”... This shot I was lucky that this particular dragonfly decided to stay in the air long enough for my pretty slow focusing Sigma 100-400 C to find focus. 1/1600 and wide open at F6.3. I did replace the sky since the original sky was quite boring...”

So probably not a great use case in support of Sigma 100-400 optical excellence. its a budget lens.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Tha
> 
> Thanks Alan,
> 
> ...


The image in fredmiranda is fine for optical quality, it is only the speed of AF the guy complains about. I tried out 2 copies of the Sigma 100-400mm from my local dealer and posted the results in CR. Optically it was good but the IS was worse than I had hoped for and the tracking was not so good. Reliable review sites, like lenstip and opticallimits rate it well for IQ and TDP has it pretty close to the 100-400mm II. I do have two copies of the Canon 100-400mm II, so you can guess my preference. However, Sigma has just upgraded the 100-400mm for the Sony FE mount and I would not be surprised if they bring out a competitive RF version.





Sigma 100-400mm quick test


I recently reported a quick comparison of the Sigma 100-400mm on my 5DSR with shots of a nearby flagpole. The results weren't quite as good as my Canon 100-400mm II. My local dealer got in another copy today and lent it to me for more extensive testing as I had a view to buying. I took shots of...




www.canonrumors.com




https://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=502





Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 HSM DG OS Contemporary (Canon EOS) - Review


Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 HSM DG OS Contemporary (Canon EOS) - PREVIEW




opticallimits.com












Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Afterthought
For amusement, I just looked at the TDP comparison of the Sigma 1.4xTC at 560mm and f/9 with the 600mm f/11.









Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com




There is a FM thread on the new Sigma 100-400 with the FE mount, and the images look pretty good - not that I am ever going in the Sony direction.





Pre-order: Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE ($949!)


A new Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 DG DN OS FE is soon to be announced according to Sonyalpharumours. I suppose it will be in the Contemporary series, but S...



www.fredmiranda.com


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 29, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The image in fredmiranda is fine for optical quality, it is only the speed of AF the guy complains about. I tried out 2 copies of the Sigma 100-400mm from my local dealer and posted the results in CR. Optically it was good but the IS was worse than I had hoped for and the tracking was not so good. Reliable review sites, like lenstip and opticallimits rate it well for IQ and TDP has it pretty close to the 100-400mm II. I do have two copies of the Canon 100-400mm II, so you can guess my preference. However, Sigma has just upgraded the 100-400mm for the Sony FE mount and I would not be surprised if they bring out a competitive RF version.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks again, Alan.
I agree that the lens is reasonably Sharp. To my taste though it does produce somewhat warmish imagery and bokeh is rather unpleasant to my eye. AF speed and consistency on my 5D4’s was unacceptable for shooting fast moving subjects. I sold the Sigma and bought Canon 100-400 II and never looked back since.
I am in love with the Canon lens image rendition qualities and colour reproduction.

some examples of what I am referring to can be found on the page 10 of the FM discussion you provided a link to:


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2020)

All lenses are compromises. For me, as an opportunistic and mobile nature photographer, I need a lens that is light enough to carry around and capture far flying birds, large and small creatures at mid distances, and focus close enough for insects. My favourites are the Canon 100-400mm II because of its versatility, sharpness and AF, and the Nikon 500mm PF, which is less versatile but does focus down to 3m and makes up for its lower versatility for being so sharp both at 3m and infinity. I do have some remorse at no longer having the 400mm DO II which is of similar quality to the Nikon but its weight is at the limits I can hike with now I am older. Arbitrage, who is my bird gear guru, has just posted an incredible shot of a Black Oystercatcher in flight captured by a 100-400mm II + 2xTCIII on an R5 so I think the 100-400 will see me for a while https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1656877/32
The 800mm f/11 should do as well as the zoom at f/11, and will be fine for those type of shots.


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I have started two threads about the f/11 lenses and have written several other posts to analyse their pros and cons. I have consistently written that there will be many happy users of these lenses - they do have their places. As for your statement that neither of the Canon zoom combinations will get you to 800: 2x400mm = 800mm, 2x500mm = 1000mm. Both the Canon zooms will get you there! Or does your disdain for charts apply to arithmetic as well?
> 
> If you want the real stuff and not charts, here is a cracking shot posted on Fredmiranda of a dragonfly in flight captured on an R5 with the el cheapo Sigma 100-400 https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1656877/30#15327941 - and that's a real close up. These cheap zooms are optically excellent.


I believe you just mentioned the 1.4. I was commenting on the combos you talked about there. If I misread that, I was in error.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 1, 2020)

AlanF said:


> For about $2000, you can get some spectacular zoom lenses.



$2000 is considerably more than the cost of either of the f/11 telephotos at $700 and $900, respectively.

In fact, $2,000 is 25% more than the cost of _both_ the RF 600mm f/11 _and_ the RF 800mm f/11 combined!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> $2000 is considerably more than the cost of either of the f/11 telephotos at $700 and $900, respectively.
> 
> In fact, $2,000 is 25% more than the cost of _both_ the RF 600mm f/11 _and_ the RF 800mm f/11 combined!


I'd prefer to have a spectacular zoom lens for $2000 than both of the f/11 lenses, despite 25% extra.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I'd prefer to have a spectacular zoom lens for $2000 than both of the f/11 lenses, despite 25% extra.



Sure, if one has the resources. 

But it's a bit disingenuous to reply to a comment about how lenses costing less than half as much are pretty bad by pointing out $2,000+ lenses that are pretty good. 

The Tamron ("G1") and Sigma "C" 150-600mm f/5-6.3 zooms go for around $900. That's within reach for a lot of folks for whom $2,000 is a bit more than they can justify spending.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 4, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Sure, if one has the resources.
> 
> But it's a bit disingenuous to reply to a comment about how lenses costing less than half as much are pretty bad by pointing out $2,000+ lenses that are pretty good.
> 
> The Tamron ("G1") and Sigma "C" 150-600mm f/5-6.3 zooms go for around $900. That's within reach for a lot of folks for whom $2,000 is a bit more than they can justify spending.



I have never anywhere written or intimated that the 800mm or 600mm lens are "pretty bad". All I have pointed out is that the 800mm lens is a very specialised lens, with a long mfd and a single long focal length. There's absolutely nothing disingenuous with that, and I have mentioned in several posts those are the reasons why I prefer a zoom.

I've even started a whole thread pointing out the f/11 is an attractive lower priced alternative.


AlanF said:


> Another of my geek articles, which does have some implications for actual use. What I do here is to calculate the contributions of diffraction and sensor Mpx size (R5 vs R6) to the resolving power of the 400mm f/5.6 and 500mm f/7.1 zooms and the 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes and how resolution is affected by 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.
> 
> The summary based on just the effects of diffraction and sensor Mpx, and ignoring optical aberrations is:
> 
> ...



And, I am also a great fan of the Sigma 150-600mm C and have reported in other threads that it works fine on the R5, including with the 1.4xTC: e.g


AlanF said:


> Confirmed this morning. The Sigma 150-600mm C on the old firmware version was fine with my 5D series but slow AF with the R5 and hardly worked with the 1.4xTC. Upgrading to the 2 series firmware has fixed the problem. The AF with the 2xTC is quite as acceptable now, but not as fast as the 100-400mm II with the 2xTC. So, Sigma owners, get out your Sigma Dock for the R5. (The upgrade from 1.03 was recommended previously for use with the Sigma MC-11 adapter for Sony, which is why I hadn't bothered). I'd say the IQ in the centre at 840mm with the Sigma is about the same as the Canon at 800mm, but the Canon has edge-to-edge sharpness whereas the Sigma is a little softer at the edges.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 5, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I'd prefer to have a spectacular zoom lens for $2000 than both of the f/11 lenses, despite 25% extra.


So buy they 100-500! A bit more than $2000, and if you really want "spectacular", then be prepared to shell out 6 grand.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 5, 2020)

Dragon said:


> So buy they 100-500! A bit more than $2000, and if you really want "spectacular", then be prepared to shell out 6 grand.


I consider the 100-400mm II to be spectacular.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I consider the 100-400mm II to be spectacular.


The 100-400mm II is very good at 400, but my 800 L 5.6 is a LOT better at 800. Angular resolution is a function of objective size.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2020)

Dragon said:


> The 100-400mm II is very good at 400, but my 800 L 5.6 is a LOT better at 800. Angular resolution is a function of objective size.


A 100-400mm II is infinitely better than an 800mm L 5.6 between 1 to 6m, their respective mfds, and I bet I can do birds in flight hand held far better with the 400mm than most normal human beings can with the 800mm L 5.6. For my purposes, hiking with a lens for nature photography or being able to move it quickly for action shots, the 800 f/5.6 is quite useless for me, personally, whereas the 800 f/11 I could use, and might even get. I fully concede that for your purposes, the 800 f/5.6 may well be far more appropriate and get you better images and capture objects much further away.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 7, 2020)

AlanF said:


> A 100-400mm II is infinitely better than an 800mm L 5.6 between 1 to 6m, their respective mfds, and I bet I can do birds in flight hand held far better with the 400mm than most normal human beings can with the 800mm L 5.6. For my purposes, hiking with a lens for nature photography or being able to move it quickly for action shots, the 800 f/5.6 is quite useless for me, personally, whereas the 800 f/11 I could use, and might even get. I fully concede that for your purposes, the 800 f/5.6 may well be far more appropriate and get you better images and capture objects much further away.


No argument on either the size and weight or MFD issues. I have both the 800 f/5.6 and the 100-400 II. They serve very different purposes. Another lens that I like a lot is the 70-300 L. It is a very good match for the 90D and is both light and very sharp. I just wont accept a Canon TC, but the Tamron 1.4 seems to work fine with it. Here is a a sample of that combo at 170mm and a crop of a small area after the image was blown up to 96 MP.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2020)

Dragon said:


> No argument on either the size and weight or MFD issues. I have both the 800 f/5.6 and the 100-400 II. They serve very different purposes. Another lens that I like a lot is the 70-300 L. It is a very good match for the 90D and is both light and very sharp. I just wont accept a Canon TC, but the Tamron 1.4 seems to work fine with it. Here is a a sample of that combo at 170mm and a crop of a small area after the image was blown up to 96 MP.



Bryan at The-Digital-Picture says in his review of the 70-300 L that although it is not officially supported, due to physical clearance issues at shorter focal length, at about 250mm and longer focal lengths the 1.4X and 2X Canon extenders will, in fact, mount and the resulting image quality is very good.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 16, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Bryan at The-Digital-Picture says in his review of the 70-300 L that although it is not officially supported, due to physical clearance issues at shorter focal length, at about 250mm and longer focal lengths the 1.4X and 2X Canon extenders will, in fact, mount and the resulting image quality is very good.


I am not blown away with the 2x performance, so I just carry the Tamron 1.4x which seems to be pretty comparable in IQ to the Canon and it works over the full zoom range of the lens. This lens is in my 90D bag, so anything more than 1.4x is better served by cropping.


----------

