# Sooooo, f/11 you say? What’s Canon up to with these upcoming supertelephoto lenses?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 9, 2020)

> I’ve known about the RF 600mm f/11 DO IS STM and RF 800 f/11 DO IS STM since about mid-February, I was confused then and I’m confused now.
> Who are these lenses for? Is there possibly some software trickery coming to Canon EOS R cameras?
> I’m thinking about using these lenses on safari for example. I’m not sure there is enough light at dawn and dusk to shoot the wildlife, and there’s no point in shooting at noon under the high sun.
> What about videographers, is there any use for f/11 outside of specific situations?
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## mbike999 (Jun 9, 2020)

These are the "telephotos for the masses". Many people would love a telephoto lens but don't want the weight or incredible cost. Remember that most telephoto micro four-thirds lenses render a DOF of F/8 or higher, so if they figured out a way to make these lenses AF well in low-light, they should be great. I think it's a great idea, provided Canon doesn't just stop there. I'd still hope to see some F/4 or F/5.6 DOs in the future.


----------



## Fischer (Jun 9, 2020)

Yachting and surfing comes to mind. Perfect for sport in good weather in general. But still speciality lenses for sure. Hopefully the price will be nice. I also imagine these to be quite small and handy.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 9, 2020)

Like I said in the other thread, I think these are going to be an incredibly good value and incredibly portable. $1000-$1500 for these as non-L STM lenses that can fit in basically any bag would be super impressive. 

Here's something to consider: the biggest cause of the falling camera market is because of the use of cellphone cameras. What's one thing cellpbone cameras can't compete with simply because of physics? Zoom. Long, cheap zoom is a huge advantage of buying a camera, and 600mm even at f/11 could be a super exciting consumer lens. Especially considering the size. 

I shoot almost all of my casual wildlife work with my 100-400 and 1.4 at F/8 to F/11, so I would be interested to grab the 800mm f/11 depending on how things look.


----------



## HenryL (Jun 9, 2020)

I've been thinking about this since I read the original post earlier today. Can't come up with a single place where I'd find either one of these lenses useful. Other than not costing $13K, I can't imagine any benefit.


----------



## janhalasa (Jun 9, 2020)

If the R6 has a 20MPx sensor, it will be able to use very high ISOs, so high f/11 should not be a problem.

Or maybe Canon just want to make the f/7.1 lenses more attractive - suddenly, they seem to be quite fast


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 9, 2020)

These f/11 lenses aren't for me, not in Scotland when most of my photography is on rather gloomy days. But on a bright day someplace bright I could see a 800mm f/11 lens being great value or for someone just getting into it. Wildlife photography has been one of the most expensive routes into photography(Compared to people or macro where you can get 1-2 sub £500 lenses and you are good to go).


----------



## Thcwub (Jun 9, 2020)

These are lenses for people like me, and god I am excited for them. These are for the hobbyist and enthusiasts that dont have $13000 to put down on a lens, but just want to get a shot! f11 is plenty for non-professional work for people like me who are already used to a bit of noise in their shots. As someone who has shot many a bird with a Canon 100-400 and Sigma 150-600 with either extended these could be an absolute breath of fresh air. Extenders are primarily known for their slow AF performance (when you get it) and compromised image quality (especially on the 2x). If you're shooting with these already, a dedicated lense is going to offer much better IQ, and I guess the R model cameras are going to be able to handle the AF better. The R cameras are also going to handle that noise better.

Sure, F11 wont get you enough light at early dawn or just before dusk. But they would offer a greatly reduced barrier to entry for weekend warriors like myself, especially as most of my shooting opportunities are typically during the day when light would certainly permit the use of these lenses.

Wildlife, bird, and most serious sport photography has a very serious price tag as a barrier for entry. I am so excited to think that Canon might look to finally address that, where Sigma and Tamron tried but havent yet quite hit the mark.

Sometimes getting A shot is the same as getting THE shot, especially when you would otherwise get NO shot. A reality that I think is lost on many 'invested' photographers who like to turn their noses up at anything seemingly cheap or perceived to be sub-par.


----------



## geekyrocketguy (Jun 9, 2020)

I owned a Nikon 1000 f/11 mirror lens for a couple years and used it a decent amount. Solar eclipse, lunar eclipse, crazy landscape shots, volcanic eruptions. https://www.flickr.com/search/[email protected]&sort=date-taken-desc&view_all=1&text=nikon 1000

I would definitely be interested in the 800 f/11 if it was priced right (<$1000 used) and had good quality and IS. I don't want to drop $10K to haul around an enormous 800 f/5.6, and I'm ok shooting with extremely burly tripods. I don't care about AF either, but the chance of having IS but not AF is zero.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 9, 2020)

I have used my 100-400 with a 2X TC, and that is f/11 equivalent at 800mm. Obviously, it is for brightly lit objects that are not moving. With the 5 stop IS on the EOS R, it would be possible to use a relatively slow shutter speed and keep ISO's down as long as there is little or no motion. It might even be possible to get some clear BIF shots by sortng thru 8K video frames.

If the lens is reasonably priced, and smaller and light, I'd at least be interested as useful for having a long telephoto with me while traveling. 

Canon has a lot of photographers on their staff who try and use prototype bodies and lenses in many different situations, that is why they seldom get it wrong for the targeted customer.

That slider thingy bar on the back of my R is a example of a big miss.


----------



## Thcwub (Jun 9, 2020)

geekyrocketguy said:


> I would definitely be interested in the 800 f/11 if it was priced right (<$1000 used) and had good quality and IS. I don't want to drop $10K to haul around an enormous 800 f/5.6, and I'm ok shooting with extremely burly tripods. I don't care about AF either, but the chance of having IS but not AF is zero.


Exactly this. I love my 100-400 but my biggest gripe is throwing a 2x on it. The process of taking the lens off, putting the 2x on, putting the lens back on, and trying to work out what to do with the lens caps in the meantime, is a frustrating one by itself, and much moreso when the AF is dodgy and the IQ is compromised. Give me a 800 f/11 to carry along side my 100-400 and I will be the happiest bushwalker you've ever seen.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Jun 9, 2020)

even without IS, that canon 400mm 2.8 lens will probably be around the same ballpark as the EF version IMark III that has IS. Im banking on it.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Jun 9, 2020)

I don't know about f/11 lenses though. Usually, most lenses get sharper when you bring it down 2 stops. and usually, at f/11 they start to get blurry again.


----------



## Chines (Jun 9, 2020)

I started to get some wildlife shots using a Tamron 150-600. For it to be somehow sharp at 600mm you need to stop down to f9, which was never a problem for my amateur photos. If the new lenses are sharp right at f11 and focus fast, it's not too much of a difference and gives plenty of reach in a hopefully light package.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Jun 9, 2020)

For me it's not a matter of whether I would *choose* to shoot at f/11 on other lenses, but the fact that an f/11 lens doesn't afford me the flexibility to shoot faster if need be. Having an f/5.6 lens and shooting at f/11 is much different than needing f/5.6 but only having f/11. Yes, if the new cams resolve better at low light that's great, but I still would rather shoot at lower ISO values and a wider aperture. Every lens has its target audience, I get that, but I'm still baffled by Canon's aperture choices of many of these lenses being talked about. And I would argue I'm clearly not in the target audience for them.


----------



## CJudge (Jun 9, 2020)

I'm thinking of all the cases where a super-tele would be required, and shallow DOF is undesireable / irrelevant... Architectural details, abstract shots, landscapes. The compression you could get from this set-up would yeild some really unique images for a whole range of photographers who would neither be willing to fork out for a wider aperture super-tele prime nor be willing to carry it around to find these shots.

Imagine hiking with one of those big whites, just in case you saw a shot that suited it. You'd have to be crazy. But with something that clocked it at maybe a quarter of the weight? Now you're talking.

These lenses are designed to be relevant for decades. We've been hearing that the R5 and R6 will be using a new sensor, so it's entirely likely that there may be 2/3rds of a stop better high ISO performance over the current crop of Canons. And then the following generation could be yet another small increase still. In that context, maybe it would be better to imagine these as performing as though they were F/8 lenses on current cameras (DOF notwithstanding).

With the already great 5Div sensor in the EOS R paired with incredible feats of engineering such as the RF 28-70 F/2, we're being spoiled by better and better incremental gains in performance. But sometimes, it's worth trading in some of that excess performance for cheaper or lighter. For the exact same reason someone might be happy to continue to use the EF 24-70 F/4 with the EOS 5Diii, quite a few people will be happy to use these F/11 super-teles with the R5/R6. Different priorities.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 9, 2020)

What would be a funny overlap is to see the venn diagram of people who say these lenses aren't targeted for them, and those who can actually afford or justify owning a 800mm f/5.6

I'd rather pick up the 800mm f/11 on a whim for $1500 and have 800mm available to me for eclipses/etc than spend years dreaming of picking up a 800 

Especially considering that on the 1.6x crop mode of the R5, this turns into a 1280mm. If the R5 is 45mp, that still gives you around 18 megapixels at 1280mm


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 9, 2020)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> For me it's not a matter of whether I would *choose* to shoot at f/11 on other lenses, but the fact that an f/11 lens doesn't afford me the flexibility to shoot faster if need be. Having an f/5.6 lens and shooting at f/11 is much different than needing f/5.6 but only having f/11. Yes, if the new cams resolve better at low light that's great, but I still would rather shoot at lower ISO values and a wider aperture. Every lens has its target audience, I get that, but I'm still baffled by Canon's aperture choices of many of these lenses being talked about. And I would argue I'm clearly not in the target audience for them.



Having a 600 f/4 or a 800 f/5.6 that costs more than 12000 new is different than something that is f/11 and would cost between 1000-2000, isn't it? And don't forget the differences in size and weight.


----------



## magarity (Jun 9, 2020)

I don't have any DO lenses so this might be a dumb question: are they a little brighter than regular lenses somehow?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 9, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> What would be a funny overlap is to see the venn diagram of people who say these lenses aren't targeted for them, and those who can actually afford or justify owning a 800mm f/5.6
> 
> I'd rather pick up the 800mm f/11 on a whim for $1500 and have 800mm available to me for eclipses/etc than spend years dreaming of picking up a 800
> 
> Especially considering that on the 1.6x crop mode of the R5, this turns into a 1280mm. If the R5 is 45mp, that still gives you around 18 megapixels at 1280mm



Agreed. I'm going to look into the RF 100-500 when it comes out. With that + a 1.4x TC, the 500mm f/11 won't be that appealing. I'll wait for reviews on the 600mm f/11 before looking into it. I'd like to see it compared to the 100-500 with 1.4x and 2.0x TCs. I'm guessing that the higher end solution will be the 100-500 with a supertelephoto above that. The more consumer end solution would be a 70-300 non-L paired with a f/11 supertelephoto.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 9, 2020)

magarity said:


> I don't have any DO lenses so this might be a dumb question: are they a little brighter than regular lenses somehow?



The first generation of Canon DO lenses had weird bokeh and had less contrast than the typical L lens. The 400mm f/4 IS DO II is a great lens. Reduction in length and the attendant reduction in weight are the primary benefits of DO.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 9, 2020)

The version II of the EF telephotos removed the protective outer element and realized a significant weight savings. The version III shifted most of the elements toward the camera body and realized a significant weight savings. Will the RF version of the telephotos all use DO as a baseline technology to reduce size and weight and abandon the green ring for red?


----------



## Tom W (Jun 9, 2020)

I pointed out on the other thread discussing the new lenses, but I'll repeat myself here:

I like birding. Sometimes, in very dark forests, even at high noon, I'm needing ISO 3200, even 6400, and on rare occasions, 12,800 to get the shot with my 5D4 and the Siggy 150-600 (f/6.3 at 600).

Simple math: if a shot requires, say, 1/1000 at f/5.6 at ISO 3200, it will require ISO 6400 at f/8, and ISO 12,800 at f/11. Unless the new cameras can produce the noise and DR characteristics at 12,800 of my 5D4 at 3200, the f/11 is a non-starter for me. As it is, the Sigma is pushing the limits, a bit of a compromise lens in terms of size/aperture/focal length/price. If it weren't a fixed focal length, and a bit heavy, I'd be toting my 500/4 with me very often.


----------



## amorse (Jun 9, 2020)

Moon silhouette photos on a budget? That was an EF 800mm with a 2x TC....

F11 seems a bit out there to me, but creative applications which depend on a lot of reach and either have a lot of light or don't need a lot of light could fit. Ultra long-distance portraits pressed up against distant objects? Vacation pictures of animals in mid-day sun?


----------



## RMac (Jun 9, 2020)

As f/11 DO lenses, they'll potentially be the most portable lenses at these focal lengths that have ever been produced. f/11 should be good for daylight or things like shooting the moon. Can't the R focus down to f/11? I imagine that autofocus minimum brightness requirements was one of the major reasons we didn't see lenses like these for the EF system.


----------



## Abe Halpert (Jun 9, 2020)

If it's for amateurs, they'll probably just push up the ISO to compensate and be glad they can afford the price/weight at all


----------



## J9canon (Jun 9, 2020)

Can someone translate the patent numbers? Is the length of the lens provided?


----------



## Tom W (Jun 9, 2020)

One more thing to point out - if you have the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, you already have available, with a teleconverter, 560 mm at f/8, and 800 at f/11 using the 1.4x or 2X respectively. Same with the 400/5.6L, but without IS.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 9, 2020)

Tom W said:


> One more thing to point out - if you have the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, you already have available, with a teleconverter, 560 mm at f/8, and 800 at f/11 using the 1.4x or 2X respectively. Same with the 400/5.6L, but without IS.



This is part of the reason why I'm almost entirely certain these will be cheaper than the 100-400. Add on the fact they're not L lenses and are listed as STM, I get the sense these are closer in price to the 24-240 STM than to even the 100-500. I think is this part of a much bigger plan by Canon.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 9, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> This is part of the reason why I'm almost entirely certain these will be cheaper than the 100-400. Add on the fact they're not L lenses and are listed as STM, I get the sense these are closer in price to the 24-240 STM than to even the 100-500. I think is this part of a much bigger plan by Canon.



And I bet they'll be black, not white, with a green stripe.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 9, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Like I said in the other thread, I think these are going to be an incredibly good value and incredibly portable. $1000-$1500 for these as non-L STM lenses that can fit in basically any bag would be super impressive.
> 
> Here's something to consider: the biggest cause of the falling camera market is because of the use of cellphone cameras. What's one thing cellpbone cameras can't compete with simply because of physics? Zoom. Long, cheap zoom is a huge advantage of buying a camera, and 600mm even at f/11 could be a super exciting consumer lens. Especially considering the size.
> 
> I shoot almost all of my casual wildlife work with my 100-400 and 1.4 at F/8 to F/11, so I would be interested to grab the 800mm f/11 depending on how things look.


Use of STM instead of nano-USM is a big concern for Af speed. Already thanks to f11 they are going to have difficulty in tracking even in good light add to that STM and 1500$ asking price is looking too high.


----------



## MiJax (Jun 9, 2020)

I just don't see the logic. RF adapter and a 2x extender on the 400L 5.6 and you got the same light gathering and effective focal length (and likely cheaper). Of course I'd imagine they can get better IQ and focusing, but still F/11? Adding in budget DO optics, and this sounds like a dog. To me, this is a solution in search of a problem. Maybe there's something missing from the patent that ties it all together... like an internal 2 or 3x extender. Now that might help explain the odd nature of the rumor. For example, a 400 DO 5.6 with an internal 2x Extender (pushing it out to f/11) makes tons of sense, especially if they can produce the DO optics cheap.


----------



## sanj (Jun 9, 2020)

Nothing complicated. These will be light, inexpensive lenses for people who cant afford the excellent f4 lenses already available. Those who can afford the f4, it is already there. Simple it is.


----------



## sanj (Jun 9, 2020)

It is for people who want to shoot in good light: Many sporting events and the safari tourists who leave camp only after a sumptuous breakfast and return for a cocktail before dinner. 'Bad' (actually good) light lasts for 90 mins in the morning and 60 mins at night. Rest of the day is fine for f11 especially with cameras now with good high ISO results. Not complicated at all


----------



## bbasiaga (Jun 9, 2020)

I'm curious as a hobbyist. I like the thought of a long lens that i'd never be able to afford in 'big white' configuration. I know years ago they were talking about DO allowing some interesting designs. Maybe this is the first wave of those ideas seeing the light (pun fully intended). 

I think its obvious too that Canon is looking at mirrorless as a different beast than DSLR - and is trying to do some different things to capture the difference in capability in creative ways. 7.1 zooms and 11 fixed lenses wouldn't be usable at all except in manual mode on DSLRs. It may take the market a little while to open their thinking up to new combos of gear and how they can be used. 

Wouldn't be the first time. I remember so many people bellyaching 'why does my phone need a screen this big/internet/a camera? I can't believe i have to charge this every day...." etc. Now look at where we are.


----------



## bhf3737 (Jun 9, 2020)

The R series, even the lowly RP, can AF on f/11 and AF is quite fast and reliable. I think f/11 on affordable long lenses means that Canon is confident with AF speed and high ISO performance of the R series cameras, for those who do not mind slight image degradation due to defraction. I can imagine that the R5, R6 and beyond cameras would produce even better pictures at higher ISO with these rather cheap f/11 and of course better pictures with more pricey native RF long lenses to come.


----------



## NowHearThis (Jun 9, 2020)

To answer your question. Airshows are an obvious example. The last time I saw the Thunderbirds it was in June under a cloudless sky. F11 is not an issue, but having enough reach sure was. I was wishing I had the Oly 100-300 or longer for my camera. A nice small, lower cost, high quality super telephoto would be amazing for Airshows. That's one of a few dozen examples I can think of.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 9, 2020)

"Not enough light" depends entirely on how good the high ISO performance is on the upcoming R5.

Also, filmmakers will shoot at 1/50 or 1/60 shutter speed no matter the focal length of the lens, unless they are capturing high frame rate for slomo use. So as long as the high ISO performance on the R5 is decent, these lenses should work fine throughout the day, and even during the gold hour.


----------



## padam (Jun 9, 2020)

I wouldn't be surprised to see the 800/11 being 3000$ and the 600/11 maybe 1500$.
If they are cheaper, that's all good I just don't see it, as every stop of light gathering seems to double the price, ans I think they do care about making them as sharp as possible.


----------



## Go Wild (Jun 9, 2020)

So....It all depends on the user, your expectations, your demands and of course...your wallet. But even so....Unless this telephoto lenses are ridiculous small I only can justify the 800mm....For 600mm or close I would rather use a 400mm F5.6 small and cheap lens with great IQ attached to the new RF 1.4 teleconverter. I could benefict of a 560mm F8 lens.

F11 lens is just so dark....This would mean that it´s almost impossible to get good results in a cloudy day....Or for example only shoot from 10AM to 4 PM in Sunny days....Heck....that´s a hell of a limitation! I can understand that someone that do photography just for fun to buy one of these! It´s totally understandable! But.....Damn....You will be on the "dark side"   

This reminds me one lens from Rokinon it was the 650-1300 F8-F16! The lens of course was not a success! First because the image quality was not good, then Without IS you would need very high shutterspeed! And then, combine a high shutterspeed with an aperture of F16! Total disaster! 

So....Let´s see....If the lenses have no IS it can be problematic to shoot with...Unless IBIS is from another world!! Why? Well...If you shoot with an 800mm lens, you would need at least a shutter of 1/1600. To have that shutter you will loose light. Combine that with an F11 and you only could photograph with a lot of light! Or....Jumping ISO to 10.000!

Another thing is the bokeh.... At F11 you will have more problems to have blurry backgrounds and unless the subject is in a place with no close background....You will have a problem.

Again....for professional work maybe not...but for some enthusiasts that could work...I don´t know...There is a reason Why they are sooooo expensive....


----------



## Buck (Jun 9, 2020)

soccer moms and dads want the close ups you can't get from a cell phone


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Who are these lenses for?


I *routinely* shoot my Sigma 150-600C at f/7.1 on my 7D Mark II. That's approximately equivalent to f/11.4 on full-frame. I use it mostly for airshows and such, in good light.

If I need low-light performance I switch to the 70-200/2.8. Different situations have different needs and f/11 is perfectly useful. Heck my telescope is native f/10 (cat) and my old one was f/15 (mak). Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Thcwub (Jun 9, 2020)

Tom W said:


> One more thing to point out - if you have the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, you already have available, with a teleconverter, 560 mm at f/8, and 800 at f/11 using the 1.4x or 2X respectively. Same with the 400/5.6L, but without IS.


And if you have these you also know how annoying it is to swap the converters on and off on the run. The issue with the converters is theyre a pita to muck around with in the bush, or any times the elements are playing up, and they come at the expense of IQ and AF. I love my 100-400 ii but it simply isnt practical to swap the TC on and off during the day, nor is the noticable IQ and AF worth keeping it on all day. Further, there is nowhere to "step up" in gear between the 100-400 and an 800 monster without grabbings a 400 and putting a TC on it, and thats not a solution based on the above.

A f11 800 would be a godsent for the likes of me. Casual day shooters who dont have 10000 bucks to drop on a lens but want to step up into some long reach. 

Theyd also be a very good option for local sports photography during the day where blinding speed isnt needed but reach would be great


----------



## JoeDavid (Jun 9, 2020)

I have Canon’s 70-300mm IS DO zoom lens. It stays in a drawer now and hasn’t been used in years. It is a short lens at the 70mm setting but heavy for its size and the image quality isn’t anything special. Plus at $1399 (Samy’s current price) it’s pretty expensive and has the weird, ringed out of focus bokeh which is a DO signature. I think a lot of people will buy the new lenses for the reasons given by others but then quite a few of them will be disappointed by the f11 max aperture once they try to use them in less than ideal lighting conditions.


----------



## funkboy (Jun 9, 2020)

there are a lot of f/11 telescopes out there...
(just sayin'


----------



## MiJax (Jun 9, 2020)

Maybe I'm looking at this from the stand point of trying to make good photography and not just photography for the sake of a past time. In that line of thinking... sure, I could see some people really enjoying the lens. But from the stand point of a photog that understands light and the requirements needed to make a shot, I feel like this offering will fall short. Again, I'd take a 400L 5.6 and a 2x over this mythical unicorn even if it is optically perfect (I'd have a killer 400 at f/5.6 and the flexibility to go to 560 @ f/8.0 and [email protected] f/11.0 to boot). For me, the suggested lens' strengths don't override its potential weaknesses. Maybe Canon will prove me wrong.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2020)

Tom W said:


> One more thing to point out - if you have the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, you already have available, with a teleconverter, 560 mm at f/8, and 800 at f/11 using the 1.4x or 2X respectively. Same with the 400/5.6L, but without IS.


And, if you own a 7DII you already have 640mm at f5.6 with the 100-400. If you don't mind the single center autofocus point you have 896mm at f8 with the 1.4x converter. Buy a Sigma or Tamron 600 zoom and you have 960mm at f6.3. But, these lenses will probably be smaller and lighter if that's important. I don't think it will be to me because, as you mentioned, unless you are shooting in the bright sun, the f11 will be a nonstarter.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2020)

MiJax said:


> Maybe I'm looking at this from the stand point of trying to make good photography and not just photography for the sake of a past time. In that line of thinking... sure, I could see some people really enjoying the lens. But from the stand point of a photog that understands light and the requirements needed to make a shot, I feel like this offering will fall short. Again, I'd take a 400L 5.6 and a 2x over this mythical unicorn even if it is optically perfect (I'd have a killer 400 at f/5.6 and the flexibility to go to 560 @ f/8.0 and [email protected] f/11.0 to boot). For me, the suggested lens' strengths don't override its potential weaknesses. Maybe Canon will prove me wrong.


Keep in mind that 99.9% of photos today live on people's social media feeds. Generally shared on a cell phone or maybe an iPad at best. As someone else mentioned, there will be a lot of well-heeled soccer parents and grandparents who never shoot in anything but bright sunlight who will find these lenses fine.


----------



## Madtoffel (Jun 9, 2020)

An F11 apperature allows for some very affordable and lightweight lenses. With such a simple design under $1000 and around 1kg seems possible. This could make them a good alternative for beginners if the image quality is good and the new cameras have better low light performance. The low weight would be also helpful when traveling and hiking, although I would have liked F8 better.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 9, 2020)

Buck said:


> soccer moms and dads want the close ups you can't get from a cell phone


I'm just trying to imagine a soccer mom with an 800mm lens, holding only the camera, and hoping for great shots...


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Jun 9, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Having a 600 f/4 or a 800 f/5.6 that costs more than 12000 new is different than something that is f/11 and would cost between 1000-2000, isn't it? And don't forget the differences in size and weight.



Cost is irrelevant if you can't get the shots you want. ;-)

I'm not arguing the cost/weight savings, hence me saying I'm not the targeted audience. I am curious how many people out there have a desire for this type of lens though, in comparison to those wanting something faster, even if more expensive.


----------



## Jim Corbett (Jun 9, 2020)

Can't wait for 1000mm. f/22 pancake... very cheap and portable...


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2020)

I'm not complaining (much) because I feel Canon makes enough stuff that I want. If they make some things I don't, it's not hurting me any. But, I am a bit frustrated as a 7D fan. If there is a market for these lenses, I sure feel like there would have been a market for 7DIII and a 150-500mm f5.6 zoom.


----------



## Bonich (Jun 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


filtering in Lightroom among 50,000+ pics 500mm-1200mm:
- There is quite a lot waterfowl with F10, F11
- There is a lot of panning of cars F11 to F16 (Bright sunshine, "long" exposure)
- For Birders the chance of a relatively light and handy long FF setup doing walk, observe and shoot accidentally. This seems to be a remarkable seized market nearly not penetrated by the camera industry up to now beside some outated bridge cameras.


----------



## Flyingskiguy (Jun 9, 2020)

For the work I do, these lenses are a godsend.

I film/photograph skiing in wilderness/backcountry settings. I have to haul all of my gear in myself. Snowfields and snowy mountains on a clear day are astonishingly bright and I even at f/11 these lenses will require filtration to achieve appropriate shutter speeds for video.

Having lightweight compact super tele options will be a game changer in this part of the industry. Combined with the R5, I will have super tele, stabilized, AF tracking slo mo video capability. This will allow me alone to function in a role that previously would have required 3+ people.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jun 9, 2020)

The Cripple Hammer got transferred from the Body department to the lens department.


----------



## LLW902 (Jun 9, 2020)

I love my sigma 150-500, but I don't take it hiking. Being able to pack my RP, a prime like the 40mm pancake and a super-light and compact telephoto all in my shoulder bag sounds awesome to me.


----------



## VORON (Jun 9, 2020)

There's nothing 'horrible' in F11 lens on full frame camera. It's going to be a direct competitor to popular 1" ultrazoom cameras, which have roughly the same equivalent aperture and focal length. Well, probably overall dimensions are going to be quite similar!


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jun 9, 2020)

I mean, sure, diversify the product line. Can't be bad. But I don't think that the new RF mount was designed solely to accommodate future F11 lenses. Like the F2 28-70mm and the 1.2 primes, I would like to and probably will own more of these. Also, use my existing super zooms with the EF-RF adapter. It would be difficult to imagine the usability of F11 super tele lenses for me and the cons even with a cheaper* lens from canon. So far, there's been overwhelming reasons why we shell out $$$, sell kidneys, do wonderful things for wives, create secret bank accounts to buy expensive glass with large apertures. (I'm being sarcastic) There is possibility to stop down a lens but you can't go the other way. I would want that ability for sure.


----------



## dwarven (Jun 9, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Here's something to consider: the biggest cause of the falling camera market is because of the use of cellphone cameras. What's one thing cellpbone cameras can't compete with simply because of physics? Zoom. Long, cheap zoom is a huge advantage of buying a camera, and 600mm even at f/11 could be a super exciting consumer lens. Especially considering the size.



Yes, this is an excellent point and likely the reason Canon is making these primes.



JoeDavid said:


> I have Canon’s 70-300mm IS DO zoom lens. It stays in a drawer now and hasn’t been used in years. It is a short lens at the 70mm setting but heavy for its size and the image quality isn’t anything special. Plus at $1399 (Samy’s current price) it’s pretty expensive and has the weird, ringed out of focus bokeh which is a DO signature. I think a lot of people will buy the new lenses for the reasons given by others but then quite a few of them will be disappointed by the f11 max aperture once they try to use them in less than ideal lighting conditions.



Isn't any photography disappointing in less than ideal lighting conditions?


----------



## Kit. (Jun 9, 2020)

Non-zooms, with this focal range... unless these lenses are decent macro lenses, expect people to use them mostly with cropping.

Which will further reduce their effective aperture.


----------



## bhf3737 (Jun 9, 2020)

MiJax said:


> ... But from the stand point of a photog that understands light and the requirements needed to make a shot, I feel like this offering will fall short. ...


Most of my bird photos are f/9 or f/10 and ISO up to 6400 and I can AF comfortably with R camera at f/11. I don't see f/11 on R that restrictive to take pictures as light and requirements are concerned. I think diffraction may be more restrictive. If f/11 is a good compromise for weight, agility and cost, then so be it.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 9, 2020)

I am very interested in learning about the other three lenses that are due for release in 2021. WIth the TCs being released this year I am hoping for one larger aperture super telephoto in 2021. Ideally I would like it to be a 500 mm f4 DO lens. If so it would be the only super telephoto I would purchase for the R system.


----------



## photo212 (Jun 9, 2020)

Sunny-16 rule: Bright sunlight means shutter speed equals the inverse of the ISO setting for f/16

for f/11 you gain a stop in shutter speed. For ISO-100, the shutter speed is now 1/200 sec. For ISO-400, the shutter speed becomes 1/800 sec. Most newer sensors are excellent at ISO-400.

This makes hand holding these f/11 lenses feasible.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jun 9, 2020)

The advantage that a mirrorless has over the DSLR is the viewfinder brightness when using lenses of apertures of f8-f11. The DSLR will be dim making it more difficult to manually focus or track a subject, while the mirrorless EVF will have the brightness level of a fast lens. I put my 100-400 plus a 2x extender on my M5 and was able to manually focus quickly on birds at my pond. So, an f11 super telephoto will be just as usable as a faster lens but the only drawback is the higher ISO required. There are a few great noise reduction software packages out there that can make moderate high ISO noise a mute subject.


----------



## Richard Anthony (Jun 9, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> These f/11 lenses aren't for me, not in Scotland when most of my photography is on rather gloomy days. But on a bright day someplace bright I could see a 800mm f/11 lens being great value or for someone just getting into it. Wildlife photography has been one of the most expensive routes into photography(Compared to people or macro where you can get 1-2 sub £500 lenses and you are good to go).


Not if you buy RF lenses


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 9, 2020)

Look at this gallery on JuzaPhoto. Every single image is shot at F11:

https://www.juzaphoto.com/statistic...u5mLK-mRpVTVNfmeot9qzLA1Uh_B3kTn54meeAb3e9m1s


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 9, 2020)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> Cost is irrelevant if you can't get the shots you want. ;-)
> 
> I'm not arguing the cost/weight savings, hence me saying I'm not the targeted audience. I am curious how many people out there have a desire for this type of lens though, in comparison to those wanting something faster, even if more expensive.


And the shots you want are irrelevant if you can't afford the gear needed to get them. ;-)

I'm not in the target audient either, but Canon usually does its homework. If I was a person that had a 70-300 consumer zoom (that usually don't take TCs), I'd look into the 600 f/11 if it was under 1500. It would be even more interesting if it telescoped to the in-use length. At f/11, the lens diameter could be similar to a mid-range/short tele zoom, and if it collapses when stored, then it won't necessarily have to be that much longer.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 9, 2020)

Great! It could be inexpensive and not too heavy. Both could bring me into wildlife. The results would be quite simillar to M43 f/5.6 lenses which do pretty good job


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jun 9, 2020)

I was hoping for an 800 2.8, and a forklift too drive it around


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jun 9, 2020)

Aside from light, are people forgetting about the focal length here? You're going to need some pretty fast shutter speeds at those lengths. Other than the mid afternoon on 100% sunny days you're not going to get it


----------



## Stuart (Jun 9, 2020)

F11 is a quality bird spotting scope - https://www.dannysdigiscoping.com/swarovskiatxtlsapo.htm


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 9, 2020)

Richard Anthony said:


> Not if you but RF lenses



RF isn't the only way in however. It's just one way in.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 9, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> Aside from light, are people forgetting about the focal length here? You're going to need some pretty fast shutter speeds at those lengths. Other than the mid afternoon on 100% sunny days you're not going to get it


Have you ever used these focal lengths? I have regularly - 400mm DO II + 2xTC at 800mm and 500mm + 1.4xTC at 700mm - down to 1/80s on occasion.


----------



## Stuart (Jun 9, 2020)

Also with an EVF the image you compose with is illuminated above the f11 darkness you'd see in an optical view finder.


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

J9canon said:


> Can someone translate the patent numbers? Is the length of the lens provided?


The 600mm is 310 mm long and the 800mm is 370 mm long according to the patent linked in the other thread. That is, with the flange distance subtracted, so that these lengths refer only to the part sticking out past the mount.

They also appear to have only 9 elements, the majority of which is rather small. So these lenses should be fairly compact and light for the reach they provide. Given that they appear to be STM lenses, I am also expecting them to be shockingly affordable.


----------



## RogerF (Jun 9, 2020)

These may have been in preparation for taking pictures at the Japan Olympics from the stands and not for wildlife. The reason to buy one of these cameras may be perhaps- is to have something my cell phone camera cannot do.


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Jun 10, 2020)

I don't think most people think astrophotography when they hear f/11, but the moon is bright AF. So if you're a lunar photography specialist... Might actually work for planetary photography too, although I can't translate 600mm/800mm to the equivalent telescope configuration in my head.

But as others mentioned, airshows and yachting and the like were the first thing that came to mind.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Jun 10, 2020)

Definitely made with casual photographers/masses in mind. Not everyone wants to shell out the money or deal with the weight of a fast telephoto. Also not everyone makes the effort to chase good light; they just want that snap shot of the bird/animal/wildlife when they're out and about during the day.


----------



## deleteme (Jun 10, 2020)

"Who are these lenses for?"
Somebody who has been wanting a 600mm lens they can put in their pocket.
It seems there is always someone.....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 10, 2020)

JoeDavid said:


> I have Canon’s 70-300mm IS DO zoom lens. It stays in a drawer now and hasn’t been used in years. It is a short lens at the 70mm setting but heavy for its size and the image quality isn’t anything special. Plus at $1399 (Samy’s current price) it’s pretty expensive and has the weird, ringed out of focus bokeh which is a DO signature. I think a lot of people will buy the new lenses for the reasons given by others but then quite a few of them will be disappointed by the f11 max aperture once they try to use them in less than ideal lighting conditions.


DO technology has come a long way since that lens. Don't confuse the expensive to make and poor performing technology with whats available now. Of course, it is still a tradeoff between weight, price and performance, but performance is much better.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 10, 2020)

They sound like they'd be very effective for shooting video. I often have to stop my 600 f4 down to f11 or even f16 to prevent overexposure when shooting video at 1/60th or 1/120th of a second when i don't have an ND filter available.. The stm focusing should also be quieter if capturing audio and will probably rack focus a little smother.. The smaller cross-section should also cut down on wind vibration which is a big problem with the f4's and video.

I'd take a wait and see on an F11 for stills. The big whites draw like portrait lenses which is one of the main reasons for owning them. That's probably not going to be true with slow DO lenses. The results for stills might be good for capturing detail and such but the rendering may not to be particularly pleasing.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 10, 2020)

Before jumping to conclusions, remember the 7-8 stop IS claim. That makes 1/2000th turn into 1/10th of a second. High ISO is not the only tool to make f/11 quite useful. In fact, with that kind of IS, base ISO would be available at f/11 much of the time. Not exactly a BIF lens, but for many other uses, very satisfactory. I have a Nikon 1000mm f/11 Cat that is occasionally useful, but with even 3 or 4 stops of IBIS it will be very useful and it is very small and light for its FL. The 800 f/11 DO will likely be even smaller and lighter (and probably sharper), and it will almost certainly have internal IS to augment IBIS. Many parameters are changing at the same time and you have to look at all of them in combination to see the full value of what is being proposed. I also have an 800mm f/5.6 L and it is an awesome lens, but portability is not high on its list of attributes. As always, horses for courses.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 10, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Before jumping to conclusions, remember the 7-8 stop IS claim. That makes 1/2000th turn into 1/10th of a second. High ISO is not the only tool to make f/11 quite useful.


it can be, but don't forget in alot of cases people use telephotos and also need to stop motion, requiring a higher shutter speed.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 10, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> I'm just trying to imagine a soccer mom with an 800mm lens, holding only the camera, and hoping for great shots...


A 800mm fixed focal length lens is extremely challenging to shoot sports with from a framing perspective. A 100-400, 100-500 zoom would be a better option. Even shooting across football field.


----------



## Kimejby (Jun 10, 2020)

I do astrophotography, and here F Numbers like f8 and up is very normal. Everything is mounted on a equatorial head that follows the earths rotation to get pinpoint stars. Maybe these Long reach 600/800mm F11 Canon lenses are to supplement the Canon Ra astro camera, giving Canon new market shares in a unadressed market (if Priced resonable, f11 could indicate that.

I Can take great astro Photos of targets like Orion, andromeda Galaxy with my 70/200 2.8 is Mk ii, alsonwith ext 1.4 and ext 2.0, I would be a customer for a Canon 600/800mm f11 if it fits a entusiastisk hobbyists budget


----------



## davidespinosa (Jun 10, 2020)

f/11 = did I forget to take the lens cap off ???


----------



## nighthawk82 (Jun 10, 2020)

Airshows are a very good candidate for those f/11 lenses... when shooting planes against a plain blue sky, DOF doesn't really matter, and on good weather days which are generally required for airshows, light won't be an issue either. Pretty limited use for anything else for me though so not sure I'd like to spend on them.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 10, 2020)

They are for the poor guys that cannot spend the money to have f/5.6 which makes twice the diameter, four times the area and eight times the volume (and weight) for the optical elements ... at least.

While I understand the idea behind it - give some reach at good light conditions - I prefer owning the trusty f/5.6 400
with a mark i 2x TC because of having the 5.6 400mm option. Just IS is missing often.

I would have wished another route: really compact mirror lenses with some cool manual mechanism to stop them down maybe just having
f/11, f/16 and f/22 - the rest of exposure variation could be done by variable gray filters or ISO or shutter speed. Just AF as manual prefocus and fine adjust via moving one small element. A 600mm lens with 150mm total length and 110mm diameter would be perfect for "sunset with something in front of it" to get larger sun circles.
But we live in mirrorless times so ... no chance to get mirrors again!


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> I don't think most people think astrophotography when they hear f/11, but the moon is bright AF. So if you're a lunar photography specialist... Might actually work for planetary photography too, although I can't translate 600mm/800mm to the equivalent telescope configuration in my head.


The 800mm f/11 results in a 2.8" aperture. Could be decent, depending on the price.


----------



## TW (Jun 10, 2020)

These would be for people who like diffraction-softened images with shake-induced blur and/or high-iso noise.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> They are for the poor guys that cannot spend the money to have f/5.6 which makes twice the diameter, four times the area and eight times the volume (and weight) for the optical elements ... at least.
> While I understand the idea behind it - give some reach at good light conditions - I prefer owning the trusty f/5.6 400
> [...]
> I would have wished another route: really compact mirror lenses


A 400mm f/5.6 has the same diameter as an 800mm f/11 though. So that lens is also for the "poor guys". I still epect these new ones to come in at lower prices due to the STM. Maybe Canon has advanced their DO tech quite a bit to the point where it can actually shave off cost instead of adding it.

I think a lot of people are put off by the significant effect on bokeh a mirror lens has. I believe DO also impacts it in a similar may, but that may have been only the older lenses. With mirror lenses, the donut bokeh balls are a given.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

TW said:


> These would be for people who like diffraction-softened images with shake-induced blur and/or high-iso noise.


They are for people who like this level of image quality:





This shot is from an 80D & Sigma 150-600mm C, taken at 600mm f/7.1 1/1600s ISO 500. That's equivalent to 960mm f/11 on FF in terms of FoV and noise. If you aren't statisfied with that quality, that's fine. These lenses aren't for you. Just buy a more expensive big white and enjoy it. Telling people who can't justify spending that much on photography that they apparently like images with poor IQ does come off a tad snobby to me though.

I posted these in the other thread as well, so apologies for the duplicates. But arguing with numbers doesn't help much for visualizing image quality.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 10, 2020)

TW said:


> These would be for people who like diffraction-softened images with shake-induced blur and/or high-iso noise.


Take a look at the fantastic sharp shots the Sony crowd are getting with their 200-600mm f/6.3 with 1.4 and 2xTCs at f/13 and greater https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1608204/0
We'll do the same if not better with an f/11 800mm prime.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 10, 2020)

As a portrait and event photographer, these offer almost nothing to me. However, I've noticed that many very long telephoto wildlife shots are taken at f/11 to increase DoF, so I can see there is a niche for these. 

It does suggest Canon is after a larger customer base for its Rf mount, which should be good for all of us.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 10, 2020)

JoeDavid said:


> I have Canon’s 70-300mm IS DO zoom lens. It stays in a drawer now and hasn’t been used in years. It is a short lens at the 70mm setting but heavy for its size and the image quality isn’t anything special. Plus at $1399 (Samy’s current price) it’s pretty expensive and has the weird, ringed out of focus bokeh which is a DO signature. I think a lot of people will buy the new lenses for the reasons given by others but then quite a few of them will be disappointed by the f11 max aperture once they try to use them in less than ideal lighting conditions.


The 70-300mm DO was a poor lens - I tried one recently and it was awful. The first 400mm DO had poor contrast and not up to much. But, the 400mm DO II where Canon finally got the technology working properly was a revelation and is a superb lens. Subsequently, Nikon raised the stakes even higher by introducing their DO technology, called Phase Fresnel - PF for short. Their tiny 300mm f/4 PF is a tremendous lens and the 500mm f/5.6 PF is simply incredible being tack sharp and weighing in at under 1.5kg. Lots of birders bought into Nikon just to use this lens, which is still back-ordered. We need Canon to get back into the lightweight battle.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The 70-300mm DO was a poor lens - I tried one recently and it was awful. The first 400mm DO had poor contrast and not up to much. But, the 400mm DO II where Canon finally got the technology working properly was a revelation and is a superb lens. Subsequently, Nikon raised the stakes even higher by introducing their DO technology, called Phase Fresnel - PF for short. Their tiny 300mm f/4 PF is a tremendous lens and the 500mm f/5.6 PF is simply incredible being tack sharp and weighing in at under 1.5kg. Lots of birders bought into Nikon just to use this lens, which is still back-ordered. We need Canon to get back into the lightweight battle.




For me it was a surprise that Canon only launched 3 DO lenses, considering they are working on the technology for 20 years.


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 10, 2020)

I don't particularly like this trend of slower lenses we are seeing from Canon. But I could make use of the 800 f/11. I shot my 400DOII/2x at f/8 more than at 560 or 400. I did all sorts of birding including BIF with that combo. I shoot at f/9 all the time with my Sony 200-600/1.4TC and that is for things like swallows in flight. For more static perched birds it is easy to shoot down at 1/200-1/400 with these newer IS/IBIS systems and most of the time (with a few insurance shots) you will get good results without motion blur. 

I don't see much point in the 600/11....a 600/8 (which is also in the patent) would have made more sense so you could have versatility with the 1.4TC to go up to 840/11 if you wanted to but also have f/8 at 600 if 600 is enough. I've always felt the 600/4 lenses made more sense than 800/5.6 lenses for this same type of reasoning.

If the patent that was linked to yesterday https://asobinet.com/info-patent-canon-800mm-f11-do/  in the other thread is accurate then we know about how long the lenses are going to be.
600/11: 335mm
800/11: 389mm
But those measurements will be to the sensor and not the mount so the physical lenses will be a little shorter...if someone knows the mount to sensor distance for the EOS R you can figure out the exact length (assuming the design didn't change from these patents). Those aren't super short lenses but decent size I guess.

But one thing that will be super important with these lenses for bird photography is BACKGROUND, BACKGROUND, BACKGROUND....forget about what your subject is doing...you will have to be watching your backgrounds and getting LOW, LOW, LOW for waterfowl shots if you want pleasing images....no f/4 to blast away messy grass/twigs etc. But that isn't a bad thing as the number one thing I see ruining bird images is not watching ones background and not getting low enough....even people shooting f/4 lenses suffer from that issue leading to mediocre images.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 10, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> I don't particularly like this trend of slower lenses we are seeing from Canon. But I could make use of the 800 f/11. I shot my 400DOII/2x at f/8 more than at 560 or 400. I did all sorts of birding including BIF with that combo. I shoot at f/9 all the time with my Sony 200-600/1.4TC and that is for things like swallows in flight. For more static perched birds it is easy to shoot down at 1/200-1/400 with these newer IS/IBIS systems and most of the time (with a few insurance shots) you will get good results without motion blur.
> 
> I don't see much point in the 600/11....a 600/8 (which is also in the patent) would have made more sense so you could have versatility with the 1.4TC to go up to 840/11 if you wanted to but also have f/8 at 600 if 600 is enough. I've always felt the 600/4 lenses made more sense than 800/5.6 lenses for this same type of reasoning.
> 
> ...


You have indeed posted some great shots down at water level. I'd like most of all a 500/5.6 DO which I could use with a 1.4 and 2xTC to have a 700/f8 and 1000/f11. It would be shorter than the 600-800 in the patents and just so much more versatile.


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> You have indeed posted some great shots down at water level. I'd like most of all a 500/5.6 DO which I could use with a 1.4 and 2xTC to have a 700/f8 and 1000/f11. It would be shorter than the 600-800 in the patents and just so much more versatile.



The most important feature for a new camera to me these days is the flip screen. Nothing has improved my photography more so than that. I'm not a fan of the flip to the side Canon version for the things I use it for. Would much prefer it to just tilt out to stay in line with the lens but regardless the R5 will be killer because it will be the first high quality Canon camera with a flip screen. If the 1DXIII had a flip screen I may have bought that camera to use its excellent LV system.


----------



## dolina (Jun 10, 2020)

If this is true then it would sell to people who can only afford to spend ~$2,000 on a lens.

As Sigma, Tamron and Tokina and other 3rd party lens makers proved there is a market for cheap lenses even if they dont work as well or as reliably as 1st party lenses.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 10, 2020)

KeithBreazeal said:


> The advantage that a mirrorless has over the DSLR is the viewfinder brightness when using lenses of apertures of f8-f11. The DSLR will be dim making it more difficult to manually focus or track a subject, while the mirrorless EVF will have the brightness level of a fast lens. I put my 100-400 plus a 2x extender on my M5 and was able to manually focus quickly on birds at my pond. So, an f11 super telephoto will be just as usable as a faster lens but the only drawback is the higher ISO required. There are a few great noise reduction software packages out there that can make moderate high ISO noise a mute subject.


But it won't mute the complainers.


----------



## SteB1 (Jun 10, 2020)

As I said yesterday, a 500mm f5.6, f6.3 or even f7.1 DO, for use with extenders would make more sense. Although I can see a use for this. With my type of photography, you could shoot perched birds with it, and anything much wider aperture at 800mm is going to be pretty big and expensive. Although I'm a bit puzzled about f11 at 600mm, because I'd have thought you could make it f8, and it would still be possible to make it a fairly compact and relatively expensive lens, given that f6.3 600mm zooms aren't massive.

You have to think the aim is to make these lenses very compact. My first thought when seeing the parameters is that these would be mirror lenses. If they're DO lenses, then Canon must have got the manufacturing costs down, or I can't see the point as these would be too expensive. If a long lens is f11 wide open, there will be very little need to stop the lens down.

Yes, these maximum apertures are going to be a bit limiting to say the least. To use any sort of fast shutter speed to capture action you're going to have to use pretty high ISOs, even in bright light. Anything more than a clear sunny day and you're going to have to use very high ISOs for any sort of higher shutter speed. A large proportion of long lens photography is of action, with only landscapes and stationary wildlife being contexts where you can use slower shutter speeds.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 10, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> And the shots you want are irrelevant if you can't afford the gear needed to get them. ;-)
> 
> I'm not in the target audient either, but Canon usually does its homework. If I was a person that had a 70-300 consumer zoom (that usually don't take TCs), I'd look into the 600 f/11 if it was under 1500. It would be even more interesting if it telescoped to the in-use length. At f/11, the lens diameter could be similar to a mid-range/short tele zoom, and if it collapses when stored, then it won't necessarily have to be that much longer.


When I bought my first Rebel, I could get a 75-300mm zoom thrown in for $100. I was never very happy with the results. While I was still waiting for the 6D2 to come out, there was a total eclipse of the sun viewable less than two hours away from here. So I went on line and found tests of that particular lens in one or more of its incarnations, and it appeared from the charts that f/11 was the optimum setting for the lens. So I took it, my T3i, a tripod, and of course a solar filter along and shot pictures for around 3 hours, taking the filter off during totality. At that opening almost all of the chromatic aberration went away, and my pictures look as good as any I have seen.

My point, however, is not about dealing with such a rare event, but rather that if I had done my research much earlier, I could have made decent pictures over many years with this lens shooting in Av mode at f/11 or f/8, rather than just deciding that the lens is horrible and leaving it on the shelf most of the time. Stopping down would have introduced more diffraction effects in a Rebel, and even at f/8 the lens becomes marginal. I might still have taken shots with it open wider, and had more rejects, and there would have been times I wouldn't have bothered to shoot. But the net effect would have been that I would have made more and better shots than I did until I could afford something better. The moral also was that I knew after I got the 6D2, my next big splurge (for me) would be the 100-400mm II. 

So I can easily imagine that there are people for whom one of the f/11 lenses could easily make the difference between having a lens that long or not having one.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 10, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> ...
> If the patent that was linked to yesterday https://asobinet.com/info-patent-canon-800mm-f11-do/  in the other thread is accurate then we know about how long the lenses are going to be.
> 600/11: 335mm
> 800/11: 389mm
> ...


Mount to sensor distance of Canon lenses (AFAIK):

RF: 20 mm
EF-M: 16 mm
EF/EF-S: 44 mm
You're welcome


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Mount to sensor distance of Canon lenses (AFAIK):
> 
> RF: 20 mm
> EF-M: 16 mm
> ...


It's actually 18 mm for EF-M, just like Sony FE. But really, with how small the numbers are that difference doesn't really matter much


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 10, 2020)

The lenses will be long. The patent explains why. There is a trade off of length versus number of lens elements needed to correct distortion that happens when you make the lens shorter. The lens is designed to be low cost with relatively few lens elements which reduces weight. Length, not so much.


If the total length of the optical system LO becomes
so short as to exceed a lower limit of the conditional
expression (3), the spherical aberration, the coma aberration,
the on-axis chromatic aberration, and the magnification
chromatic aberration that occur in the positive lens in the
first lens unit Ll become excessively large. To satisfactorily
correct the aberrations, it is necessary to increase the number
of lenses in the first lens unit Ll, which makes it difficult to
achieve sufficiently high optical performance while downsizing
the optical system with light weight.


----------



## Occams_Cat (Jun 10, 2020)

f11 - nope, no matter how you spin it, I can't believe they would invest in lenses this slow. We'll see...or not, if you're looking through f11 glass


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The lenses will be long. The patent explains why. There is a trade off of length versus number of lens elements needed to correct distortion that happens when you make the lens shorter. The lens is designed to be low cost with relatively few lens elements which reduces weight. Length, not so much.


Thanks for digging through the patents 

At 370 mm long the 800mm f/11 is indeed a good bit longer than the Sigma 150-600mm C fully extended. But I would expect the smaller diameter to make a big difference in weight and perceived bulk. The hood should also be pretty narrow, as it is a prime and does not have to be suitable for a wide end as well.

I guess there is no mention of a mechanism for collapsing the lens in the patent like somebody speculated earlier?


----------



## Nord0306 (Jun 10, 2020)

I have the 100-400 II and use it with an 80D and 5DIII. I can use a 1.4 TC and AF on the 80D and do sometimes, it's nice to have that option. I'm planning to get the R6 to replace both bodies. Here's my question, with EF lenses, wouldn't you have to use the RF-EF adapter and then the EF TC and then the EF lens? I don't see how it would work to use the RF TC and then the adapter. So that means the RF TCs are just for RF lenses? 
Thanks,
Adam


----------



## AJ (Jun 10, 2020)

f/11 is the new f/7.1


----------



## RJ_4000 (Jun 10, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I have used my 100-400 with a 2X TC, and that is f/11 equivalent at 800mm. Obviously, it is for brightly lit objects that are not moving. With the 5 stop IS on the EOS R, it would be possible to use a relatively slow shutter speed and keep ISO's down as long as there is little or no motion. It might even be possible to get some clear BIF shots by sortng thru 8K video frames.
> 
> If the lens is reasonably priced, and smaller and light, I'd at least be interested as useful for having a long telephoto with me while traveling.
> 
> ...


I do exactly the same on the EOS R and AF is slow but workable.
Birding ! Small birds capture requires reach and you never have enough.
For sure, I'd rather have a 600mm f/5.6 DO with a x1.4.
But, after all, 800mm f/11, why not ?


----------



## Kethean (Jun 10, 2020)

Well, these appear to be 2/3 the length of my 1000 f8, which is good because that thing is pretty unwieldy and around the same length as the 400 2.8 (also unwieldy, but mostly due to weight). I did a season or two of sports with the 1000 and it took a long time to get used to it. I imagine parents looking to pick something up like this are going to be frustrated pretty quickly and these will get bad press because of it. 

These could also be a great starter lens for those looking to get into astrophotography. That being said, I don't think people are going to pair this with the Ra, as those who would spend the money to specifically get that are likely already looking at telescopes. On the other hand, if they are sufficiently light enough it could be used with tracking mounts. I'm not an astro person, but I've heard they make intro level ones that can mount to tripods which would be great for someone starting out. 

Lastly, as others have said, wildlife presents a pretty good use case. I'm very curious to see who buys these and how well they do.


----------



## AJ (Jun 10, 2020)

I guess the first thing that came to mind when I read this are those cheap Opteka "peeping Tom specials" with 800 mm f/8 and 1600 mm f/16
https://www.amazon.com/Opteka-420-1600mm-Telephoto-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000GTV9RI
But upon further reflection I imagine the Canon primes will be a completely different ball of wax.


----------



## TW (Jun 10, 2020)

What about autofocus? Would an f/11 lens autofocus?


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

TW said:


> What about autofocus? Would an f/11 lens autofocus?


The on sensor AF using the dual pixel designs (DPAF) isn't subject to the same limitations as the separate AF sensor in an OVF.

So yes, it should focus just fine.


----------



## tigers media (Jun 10, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


im going to say landscape photographers, telephotos great for panarama shots i do all mine with my 55-200 on m m50 so full frame these lenses would be great for huge pano's with little to no movement.


----------



## dcm (Jun 10, 2020)

Early in my DSLR days when budget was more of a concern I figured the 400/5.6 with extenders might be the way to go, with a 2X to get me to 800/11. I imagine others thought similarly.

Autofocus was the major hindrance at the time so most lenses had a max aperture of f/5.6. The appearance of f/8 AF made the 1.4x possible. Maybe f/11 is the new f/5.6 in this regard which is why both the 600 and 800 are f/11. The 600 benefits from a smaller size/weight/price at f/11 rather than more light at f/8. It could very well be a marketing decision to position the lenses price wise, rather than have a 600/8 and 800/11 at about the same size and price point. Market research may have told them they'll generate more overall sales this way with two different price points, just like bodies.

The right comparison might be the 800/5.6 and the 400/5.6+2X. A native 800/11 ought do much better in this type of comparison.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> The on sensor AF using the dual pixel designs (DPAF) isn't subject to the same limitations as the separate AF sensor in an OVF.
> 
> So yes, it should focus just fine.


Absolutely. I have a 3xTC which I can put on the 100-400mm II to give f/16.8 at 1200mm and it focuses fine on the 90D in liveview.


----------



## Pixel (Jun 10, 2020)

Personally, I think they're trying to keep the professional sports market within EF for as long as possible and they want those version III 400 and 600 lenses and 1Dx camera selling for a few more years. If I had to further speculate, we won't see any fast long RF lenses for a few years.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 10, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> The most important feature for a new camera to me these days is the flip screen. Nothing has improved my photography more so than that. I'm not a fan of the flip to the side Canon version for the things I use it for. Would much prefer it to just tilt out to stay in line with the lens but regardless the R5 will be killer because it will be the first high quality Canon camera with a flip screen. If the 1DXIII had a flip screen I may have bought that camera to use its excellent LV system.


I guess by "high quality" you are referring to speed and weather sealing. Otherwise, the EOS R produces "high quality" images.
Or maybe you mean price?
In any event, yes, a welcome feature.


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Jun 10, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Late to the reply party on this but I hope these will be cheap lenses for casual wildlife folks that shout in good weather
Wildlife photography is primarily non professionals nowadays. Tons of enthusiasts who don’t have a corporate budget.
I don’t think these lenses would be for me but I have friends who would appreciate having this option. Otw those folks would have to buy used or keep an EF lens and use the adapter. Canon is making it clear that they want everyone using RF


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 10, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Mount to sensor distance of Canon lenses (AFAIK):
> 
> RF: 20 mm
> EF-M: 16 mm
> ...


Thanks for the info.


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Absolutely. I have a 3xTC which I can put on the 100-400mm II to give f/16.8 at 1200mm and it focuses fine on the 90D in liveview.


What is this 3xTC you speak of??


----------



## AlanF (Jun 10, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> What is this 3xTC you speak of??



I described it earlier in:






Kenco Teleplus Pro 300 3XM DG 3xTC


Some of us have played around stacking the 1.4xTC and 2xTCIII with an extension ring. They don't AF. I became intrigued on seeing the review of the Kenco Teleplus Pro 300 3XM DG, which is meant to be manual focus only 3xTC but it actually performs better than the Kenco 2xTC...




www.canonrumors.com





Here is a shot of the moon with it stacked onto a 2xTCIII with 300mm f/2.8 II on a 7DII to give 1800mm f/16.8 (hand held).


----------



## Whowe (Jun 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Absolutely. I have a 3xTC which I can put on the 100-400mm II to give f/16.8 at 1200mm and it focuses fine on the 90D in liveview.


What's the IQ like with a 3x TC? I love my 100-400ii, but I hear so much about poorer IQ with the 2xTC.

I have also wondered if the IQ of the combination zoom lens with 2x TC would be improved with micro adjustment. (That would explain a lot of bad reports from people not really using the lens combination.)


----------



## AlanF (Jun 10, 2020)

Whowe said:


> What's the IQ lie with a 3x TC? I love my 100-400ii, but I hear so much about poorer IQ with the 2xTC.
> 
> I have also wondered if the IQ of the combination zoom lens with 2x TC would be improved with micro adjustment. (That would explain a lot of bad reports from people not really using the lens combination.)


It's actually quite good with the 2xTC - see https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
You have to use Liveview with the 100-400mm II + 2xTC so AFMA isn't required. I have had very good results with the 2xTC on the 300mm f/2.8 II and with the 400mm DO II on the 5DIII and 5DIV but not the 5DSR where the high resolution sensor shows up the loss of IQ. AFMA was required with them. I'll have fun with the 3xTC when I get an R series plus EF->R adapter.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> It's actually quite good with the 2xTC - see https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
> You have to use Liveview with the 100-400mm II + 2xTC so AFMA isn't required. I have had very good results with the 2xTC on the 300mm f/2.8 II and with the 400mm DO II on the 5DIII and 5DIV but not the 5DSR where the high resolution sensor shows up the loss of IQ. AFMA was required with them. I'll have fun with the 3xTC when I get an R series plus EF->R adapter.



I really should drag that 2x TC out for a test. I played around with it some a few months ago, and didn't get spectacular results, but then again I *was* shooting through a triple-glaze window with a screen, which might just possibly have had an effect. Just possibly.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I really should drag that 2x TC out for a test. I played around with it some a few months ago, and didn't get spectacular results, but then again I *was* shooting through a triple-glaze window with a screen, which might just possibly have had an effect. Just possibly.


Alan I believe also reported in the past that there are copy to copy variations of how well TCS behave with certain lenses. So it may be that you have one that doesn't play well with the lens you tested.

Or maybe I'm recalling it wrong. I believe I read that in the bird thread a while back.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> Alan I believe also reported in the past that there are copy to copy variations of how well TCS behave with certain lenses. So it may be that you have one that doesn't play well with the lens you tested.
> 
> Or maybe I'm recalling it wrong. I believe I read that in the bird thread a while back.


You remember well. I had 3 copies of the 1.4xTCIII, one of which was ok in the centre and poor at the edges, one which is excellent with the 100-400mm II and another which works best with the 400mm DO II. I have fallen out of love with extenders as sensor resolution has increased.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> You remember well. I had 3 copies of the 1.4xTCIII, one of which was ok in the centre and poor at the edges, one which is excellent with the 100-400mm II and another which works best with the 400mm DO II. I have fallen out of love with extenders as sensor resolution has increased.



In that case I _really_ need to take that thing out for a test, especially since the 100-400 is precisely the lens I was using it with.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2020)

VORON said:


> There's nothing 'horrible' in F11 lens on full frame camera. It's going to be a direct competitor to popular 1" ultrazoom cameras, which have roughly the same equivalent aperture and focal length. Well, probably overall dimensions are going to be quite similar!



I'm surprised nobody else has pointed this out. The equivalent apertures for ultrazooms are crazy. f/11 sounds positively wide by comparison.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2020)

So to sum up, the answer to the thread is - air shows, skiing, motorsports, surfing/windsurfing, some other sport situations, some wildlife, the moon, sun, possibly other astro subjects, and anything currently being shot with superzooms and long lens combinations on smaller formats. Can the naysayers take a seat now?


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 11, 2020)

Many on this forum were complaining that there were no cheap lenses for the R, and now it looks like Canon is bringing out some cheap lenses, you are now complaining about them!

These long lenses will sell well if the price is right. Not so much for serious pros but for most others they can show off that they have a 600mm lens. F11 is a meaningless term to them anyway.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 11, 2020)

canonnews said:


> it can be, but don't forget in alot of cases people use telephotos and also need to stop motion, requiring a higher shutter speed.


You failed to quote most of what I said including "not exactly a BIF lens". But let's speculate here for a minute. What if Canon has figured out how to take the 3D map data that allows for eye tracking AF and applied it to a subject tracking IS mode. Even 3 stops of that suddenly turns f/11 into f/4 for a much wider set of use cases. Still not going to catch hummingbird wings, but it would likely work well on, say, an eagle in flight. I am not saying this is what Canon has done, but pre-judging an f/11 lens as useless when you don't have all the data is at best premature. Canon is a very conservative company and in the past when they have made big strides, they have not screwed up. I personally am very excited about the prospects of these lenses combined with the R5/R6.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 11, 2020)

I had always hoped for something like that for the EF system. The 600 an 800 mm lenses are very heavy and expensive because of the amount of glass. An f/11 lens could be so much lighter and cheaper. Of course for wildlife you need a lot of light, but I take photos of skyscrapers from near and far and an f/11 lens would be perfect for that, as long as the camera still manages to focus at f/11.
There is already a Russian 1000mm lens with f/10, but it is manual focus and not very sharp. So you would get better photos by upscaling photos from a very sharp 400mm lens.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 11, 2020)

Thcwub said:


> These are lenses for people like me, and god I am excited for them. These are for the hobbyist and enthusiasts that dont have $13000 to put down on a lens, but just want to get a shot! f11 is plenty for non-professional work for people like me who are already used to a bit of noise in their shots. As someone who has shot many a bird with a Canon 100-400 and Sigma 150-600 with either extended these could be an absolute breath of fresh air. Extenders are primarily known for their slow AF performance (when you get it) and compromised image quality (especially on the 2x). If you're shooting with these already, a dedicated lense is going to offer much better IQ, and I guess the R model cameras are going to be able to handle the AF better. The R cameras are also going to handle that noise better.


You do know the reason the AF is slow because it is f/8 or f/11, so how does an 800 f/11 magically fix that


----------



## Joules (Jun 11, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> You do know the reason the AF is slow because it is f/8 or f/11, so how does an 800 f/11 magically fix that


OVF based AF suffers from slow apertures, because it has only a fraction of the light to work with. Keep in mind that the vast majority of light in an OVF is send to the photographers eye and only a small amount gets to the AF sensor.

With on sensor AF, especially DPAF (So, using LiveView on a DSLR), much, much more light can be used to AF. All Canon mirrorless cameras have DPAF now and it has been demonstrated to AF even with apertures more narrow than f/11


----------



## dominic_siu (Jun 11, 2020)

Without decent light, F11 would not be very usable


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 11, 2020)

scyrene said:


> So to sum up, the answer to the thread is - air shows, skiing, motorsports, surfing/windsurfing, some other sport situations, some wildlife, the moon, sun, possibly other astro subjects, and anything currently being shot with superzooms and long lens combinations on smaller formats. Can the naysayers take a seat now?


Not really because while those examples you gave are correct there was a bit missing. ALL of them will still require excellent light conditions. As soon as the light drops(overcast conditions) you will start to struggle. So if people are willing to fork out1500bucks for a lens they can only use when everything is perfect then fair enough. They will probably give it a shot. But if they want something that can also work when conditions are less ideal then they probably will look elsewhere. Canon are not stupid though and you would assume this has all been taken into account and they believe they will sell enough to make it a worthwhile endeavor. I just hope from a personal point of view that they also go with an equivalent to the third party 150-600 offerings. The 100-500looks ok but it is still an L lens and will therefore likely come with a typical L pricetag.


----------



## Daner (Jun 11, 2020)

The combination of primes with DO optics for bodies with DPAF focusing (and for the R5/6 IBIS) makes it possible for Canon to offer long focal length lenses for a FF platform with (likely) decent IQ and auto-focus performance that are shorter, smaller, lighter, and less expensive than anything else on the market. Leaving out IS helps them be lighter and less expensive. All who need better low-light performance already have access to the IS-equipped, weather-sealed, large-aperture EF line of big whites which will continue to serve their needs well until RF equivalents become available.

This is simply opening up a new market segment that will bring super-telephoto lenses to a new set of consumers and help to make the entire R-line more appealing.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 11, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> Without decent light, F11 would not be very usable


A 50mm f/1.2 is brilliant in the absence of decent light but not much use for a small bird perched 50 meters away. The whole point of ILCs is that we use different lenses for different occasions, and 600-800mm at f/11 is often very useful if you are doing nature photography during open daylight.


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 11, 2020)

The best camera is one you have with you, and the best lens is one you can afford. An f/11 800mm is the only kind of 800mm 99% of photographers can even dream of affording, unless you count "equivalent" millimeters.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Not really because while those examples you gave are correct there was a bit missing. ALL of them will still require excellent light conditions. As soon as the light drops(overcast conditions) you will start to struggle. So if people are willing to fork out1500bucks for a lens they can only use when everything is perfect then fair enough. They will probably give it a shot. But if they want something that can also work when conditions are less ideal then they probably will look elsewhere. Canon are not stupid though and you would assume this has all been taken into account and they believe they will sell enough to make it a worthwhile endeavor. I just hope from a personal point of view that they also go with an equivalent to the third party 150-600 offerings. The 100-500looks ok but it is still an L lens and will therefore likely come with a typical L pricetag.



Well there are always caveats, and I included some; the people advocating for skiing and beach sports pointed out that the lighting is usually good there and as for the others, naurally a cheaper, slower lens won't be as good in challenging conditions as a fast, expensive one. That's hardly news! Second as I've pointed out on a few threads, you can actually shoot in cloudy/shaded conditions are narrow apertures - I've done it a lot! But whatever, keep repeating that it's only for "excllent light", maybe it'll become true if you say it enough  

I wouldn't hold your breath on a 150-600. Canon will have released three budget* telephoto options and I think you have to pick one. Or just mount a Sigma. Everything is a compromise, we rarely get precisely what we want.

*I take your point that an L will be more expensive than a non-L, but honestly how cheap do you want it? I think the speculation has been it'll cost roughly the same as the 100-400, which seems reasonable.

What I don't get - and this is a general comment, not aimed at you directly - is how much complaining there is when Canon releases new products. Like it's somehow *removing* options by providing new ones. They aren't forcing anyone to buy this. If it's poorly conceived or overpriced then it'll be a failure, but they'll have done a bit of research before producing these.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 11, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Well there are always caveats, and I included some; the people advocating for skiing and beach sports pointed out that the lighting is usually good there and as for the others, naurally a cheaper, slower lens won't be as good in challenging conditions as a fast, expensive one. That's hardly news! Second as I've pointed out on a few threads, you can actually shoot in cloudy/shaded conditions are narrow apertures - I've done it a lot! But whatever, keep repeating that it's only for "excllent light", maybe it'll become true if you say it enough
> 
> I wouldn't hold your breath on a 150-600. Canon will have released three budget* telephoto options and I think you have to pick one. Or just mount a Sigma. Everything is a compromise, we rarely get precisely what we want.
> 
> ...



Oh. I agree entirely thet they get unwarranted complaints. And to be clear I am not complaining as such. As i said they would have done their research and decided it was worthwhile. I just think it is a strange avenue to take. It is a very niche lens made even more niche by the max apature. And I agree that they probably wont match the third party offerings but it would be nice. The sigma I use is amazing for the price but when I do finally need to replace it(however many years that may be) i would like an equivalent native option but if all I have is the 100-500 then so be it. That is probably what I will go with(unless I have stumbled into a big pile of cash in which case a 200-400 and a 600 f4 will be the choices. But that is just a pipe dream. Time will tell just how good these new sensors are in low light and maybe i will be proven completely wrong about how versatile these offering are.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 11, 2020)

Lee Jay said:


> I *routinely* shoot my Sigma 150-600C at f/7.1 on my 7D Mark II. That's approximately equivalent to f/11.4 on full-frame. I use it mostly for airshows and such, in good light.



For DoF, not exposure.



Lee Jay said:


> If I need low-light performance I switch to the 70-200/2.8.



If you can crop from 200mm to 600mm, what do you need the longer zoom for?

Personally, I chose a 70-200mm f/2.8 + 2x TC.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 11, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Here's something to consider: the biggest cause of the falling camera market is because of the use of cellphone cameras. What's one thing cellpbone cameras can't compete with simply because of physics? Zoom. Long, cheap zoom is a huge advantage of buying a camera, and 600mm even at f/11 could be a super exciting consumer lens. Especially considering the size.



If it was an EOS-M super telephoto zoom, say 300mm-800mm, that explanation would make sense.

I don't see people jumping from smartphones to FF MILC with primes, regardless of of the aperture.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 11, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> For DoF, not exposure.


For practically everything worth noticing in the final image.

Unless you are well depth limited, which is unlikely with these lenses (or are you shooting sunspots?).


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 11, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> If it was an EOS-M super telephoto zoom, say 300mm-800mm, that explanation would make sense.
> 
> I don't see people jumping from smartphones to FF MILC with primes, regardless of of the aperture.



I agree. Cellphone users were only buying cameras in the past because that was the only way to have decent family and travel pictures.
Now with the arrival of good image quality in phones, that market is mostly dead.

However these cheap telephoto lenses can make some wildlife enthusiasts to buy a Canon.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 11, 2020)

Kit. said:


> For practically everything worth noticing in the final image.



You'll have to raise ISO, which will raise noise, which will be noticed in some situations.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 11, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> You'll have to raise ISO, which will raise noise, which will be noticed in some situations.


You'll need to raise ISO to get _the same_ noise as from the crop body. If you _don't_, you will end up with lower noise, which will be noticed in some situations.


----------



## Pape (Jun 11, 2020)

I wonder if they would make 350gram RPii and 300gram 400mm f8 DO .
Would make mft feel like heavy brick


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 11, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> For DoF, not exposure.



And noise, which matters, while exposure doesn't.


> If you can crop from 200mm to 600mm, what do you need the longer zoom for?
> 
> Personally, I chose a 70-200mm f/2.8 + 2x TC.



That's what I used to use. The Sigma is a better solution.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 11, 2020)

Kit. said:


> For practically everything worth noticing in the final image.
> 
> Unless you are well depth limited, which is unlikely with these lenses (or are you shooting sunspots?).



Well, sort of. This was a 6-stop HDR:


----------



## stevelee (Jun 11, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Not really because while those examples you gave are correct there was a bit missing. ALL of them will still require excellent light conditions. As soon as the light drops(overcast conditions) you will start to struggle.



"Air shows, skiing, motorsports, surfing/windsurfing" as well as the sun and the moon are all almost always in bright conditions.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 11, 2020)

I'm not planning to buy these lenses or a camera to put them on.

But the reality for me about decent conditions is like my attitude toward weather sealing. Yes, I prefer for my equipment to be protected, but since no one is paying me to get the shot in adverse conditions, I'm not getting out in bad weather shooting pictures, no matter how robust the equipment might be.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 11, 2020)

Joules said:


> OVF based AF suffers from slow apertures, because it has only a fraction of the light to work with.



That isn't why. It's because it uses the split-prism focusing method and the baseline is smaller, thus making the triangle narrower thus making it harder to triangulate. Dual-pixels is sort-of the same. Contrast detect doesn't have that issue, but it has other issues.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I really should drag that 2x TC out for a test. I played around with it some a few months ago, and didn't get spectacular results, but then again I *was* shooting through a triple-glaze window with a screen, which might just possibly have had an effect. Just possibly.


I had a look today at the 2xTCIII on the 5DIV+100-400mm II using Liveview at f/11 with a target. It's as good as on the 400mm DO II at f/8. I also looked up some old shots of targets with the 7DII. Again, it was impressive at 800mm and f/11. I have never got a really sharp shot through double-glazed window.


----------



## Joules (Jun 11, 2020)

Lee Jay said:


> That isn't why. It's because it uses the split-prism focusing method and the baseline is smaller, thus making the triangle narrower thus making it harder to triangulate. Dual-pixels is sort-of the same. Contrast detect doesn't have that issue, but it has other issues.


What does split prism focusing have to do with AF? As far as I'm aware that is used as a visual aid for manual focus. Primarily in older cameras. I'm talking about phase detection based AF. Could you please elaborate or provide as reference, I can't follow you there.

Regardless, the point that the AF sensor in an OVF receives far less light than an on sensor solution does still stands. That is definitely a factor to consider.


----------



## Nelu (Jun 11, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Yes, this is an excellent point and likely the reason Canon is making these primes.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't any photography disappointing in less than ideal lighting conditions?


No, it's not. What are the "ideal lighting conditions" anyways?


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 11, 2020)

Joules said:


> What does split prism focusing have to do with AF?



That's how AF works in an SLR. It uses the split prism method with linear pixel arrays to detect the phase difference instead of you using your eyes.


----------



## secant (Jun 12, 2020)

I remember the Minolta 500mm F8 AF mirror lens back then. I think with the current sensor high ISO performance, F8 is ok? But F11? Especially if you are shooting fast moving subjects and need a relatively high shutter speed? I am not sure, we will see I guess.

I am not sure why Canon didn't just go the conventional mirror lens approach and just make a 500mm F8 and maybe a 300mm F5.6 or F4.5. Instead they go for a F11 and we are not even sure if its an optical lens or mirror lens now.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

Pape said:


> I wonder if they would make 350gram RPii and 300gram 400mm f8 DO .
> Would make mft feel like heavy brick


Tamron 400/6.3 in Pentax PK mount : 695 grams. So...


----------



## Bonich (Jun 12, 2020)

Toglife_Anthony said:


> For me it's not a matter of whether I would *choose* to shoot at f/11 on other lenses, but the fact that an f/11 lens doesn't afford me the flexibility to shoot faster if need be. Having an f/5.6 lens and shooting at f/11 is much different than needing f/5.6 but only having f/11. Yes, if the new cams resolve better at low light that's great, but I still would rather shoot at lower ISO values and a wider aperture. Every lens has its target audience, I get that, but I'm still baffled by Canon's aperture choices of many of these lenses being talked about. And I would argue I'm clearly not in the target audience for them.


Walking around and accidentally having a 5,6 with you? This will not happen.
Nice to have a ultra portable F11 just in case ...
Fact.
Yes, sitting in a blind or car a wide aperture makes sense, I use one.


----------



## Bonich (Jun 12, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Just for helping the phantasies how to use these "crappy smartphone style F11s"
700mm (500& 1.4x) F10, ISO200, 1/800sec, 16 years old sensor technology (EOS1D MII)
Sorry, the sun reflection in the eye is barely visible here in canonrumors.


Some take the smartphone to walk around, I will do with the 600 F11


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 12, 2020)

Bonich said:


> Walking around and accidentally having a 5,6 with you? This will not happen.
> Nice to have a ultra portable F11 just in case ...
> Fact.
> Yes, sitting in a blind or car a wide aperture makes sense, I use one.



Ultra portable?? Think again...
Here is a comparison of lens lengths....these new lenses are pretty long....a 500/5.6PF is a much better walk around lens...add a 1.4TC for more reach.

Adjusted for length to mount and not sensor (-20cm from patent). Also one might want to add 0.9" to any of the lenses needed to adapt to the R cameras:

600/11 DO: 314.97mm or 12.4"

800/11 DO: 369.25mm or 14.5"

A few comparison lengths:

Sony 200-600: 12.5"

Nikon 500PF: 9.33"

Canon 400 f.2.8 III: 13.5"

Canon 400DOII: 9.16"

Canon 400DOII/2xTCIII(800 f/8): 11.26"

Canon 600III: 17.64"

Canon 800L: 18.15"

Conclusion: Long, skinny lenses....

Oh...and the lens they should have made: 600 f/8 DO: 11.78"


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 12, 2020)

Creamy backgrounds at f/11?? Well here is f/16 for the doubters....
https://flic.kr/p/2h8zDky]

August 31, 2019.jpg[/url] by https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/]Bird/Wildlife Photos[/url], on Flickr

No f/11 in lower light?....how about sunset SEO....just get creative....this one at 1/2500 840mm f/9 ISO 1000...easily could make up either SS or ISO to deal with an extra 2/3 stop of light loss and still make this shot:
https://flic.kr/p/2hSSPCm]

November 29, 2019.jpg[/url] by https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/]Bird/Wildlife Photos[/url], on Flickr


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> Ultra portable?? Think again...
> Here is a comparison of lens lengths....these new lenses are pretty long....a 500/5.6PF is a much better walk around lens...add a 1.4TC for more reach.
> 
> Adjusted for length to mount and not sensor (-20cm from patent). Also one might want to add 0.9" to any of the lenses needed to adapt to the R cameras:
> ...


The problem is that they have chosen to use very few elements in these new lenses, 9 elements in 6 groups, cf the ancient 400/5.6 which is 7 elements in 6 groups and 10.4" long. That keeps the cost down. To make it shorter, they would have to put in more groups. The 500PF is 19 elements in 11 groups, for example.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 12, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> Oh...and the lens they should have made: 600 f/8 DO: 11.78"



The f/11 lenses don't mean we won't get a 600mm f/5.6 - f/8 DO L lens. These f/11's also won't have weather sealing but leave plenty of space between them and the f/4 giants to fit in a middle of the road DO L lens.


----------



## MiJax (Jun 12, 2020)

All I'm saying is be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. Canon users complain a lot about not being listened to, and if you rave about a lens like this and then it gets a poor reception, Canon will have a reason to not listen to the community.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The f/11 lenses don't mean we won't get a 600mm f/5.6 - f/8 DO L lens. These f/11's also won't have weather sealing but leave plenty of space between them and the f/4 giants to fit in a middle of the road DO L lens.


Where is it reported they won't have weather sealing?


----------



## Arod820 (Jun 13, 2020)

I can’t use an F11 for any video I shoot, that thing would live in my closet. But I guess shooting something on the beach? Definitely not at magic hour but I guess something that has to be shot at noon from far. I can see it as tight shot from far in bright sun with reflectors used.


----------



## RBSfphoto (Jun 13, 2020)

Maybe I am missing something , but if the new sensor has greater dynamic range than f11 may become a lot more usable in conditions without bright light , like magic hour or allow you to use faster shutter speeds at f11 when shooting wildlife etc maybe what is hiding in between the lines is the new cameras will work better in low light conditions?


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Jun 13, 2020)

Bonich said:


> Walking around and accidentally having a 5,6 with you? This will not happen.
> Nice to have a ultra portable F11 just in case ...
> Fact.
> Yes, sitting in a blind or car a wide aperture makes sense, I use one.



Who said anything about walking around? ;-) If I were though, I'd rather not have an f/11 lens with me, regardless of portability. What can't be argued is this is a specialized lens with specialized purposes. You can see that from many of the responses in this thread. When you have to get very specific on when a lens would be useful, it's clearly not intended for the masses.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 13, 2020)

Would be interesting if Canon could make a viewing adapter for these lenses so they could double as IS spotting scopes. I think they might be attractive to the digiscoping wildlife crowd but I’m not sure they are ready to embrace full time digital display vs their OVF’s. Fly by wire focus kind of complicates things.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 13, 2020)

RBSfphoto said:


> Maybe I am missing something , but if the new sensor has greater dynamic range than f11 may become a lot more usable in conditions without bright light ,


The new sensors (from any manufacturer) are not expected to have much greater dynamic range "in conditions without bright light".

What can still be improved is DR at base ISO (especially with further lowering of base ISO), but it wouldn't help f/11 tele lenses.


----------



## Thcwub (Jun 13, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> You do know the reason the AF is slow because it is f/8 or f/11, so how does an 800 f/11 magically fix that


Go out and run a 100-400 II at f11, and then put a 2x extender on it and do the same. it is a world of difference. Yes, there will always be some level of focus issue at f11 due to light restrictions byt make no mistake that a lense designed to work at f11 will be immensely more efficient than a lens running a 2x extender.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 13, 2020)

Thcwub said:


> *Go out and run a 100-400 II at f11, and then put a 2x extender on it and do the same. it is a world of difference*. Yes, there will always be some level of focus issue at f11 due to light restrictions byt make no mistake that a lense designed to work at f11 will be immensely more efficient than a lens running a 2x extender.


you do realise that Canon cameras focus wide open? If you run 100-400 at f/11, the Canon camera still focusing at the widest available aperture. f/5.6 @400mm. Not f/11. Hence the difference in AF speed you pointed out.
make no mistake, that Lens designed To work at f/11 will be not immensely more efficient than a lens running 2x extender. Due to “light restrictions” as you put it


----------



## stevelee (Jun 13, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> you do realise that Canon cameras focus wide open? If you run 100-400 at f/11, the Canon camera still focusing at the widest available aperture. f/5.6 @400mm. Not f/11. Hence the difference in AF speed you pointed out.
> make no mistake, that Lens designed To work at f/11 will be not immensely more efficient than a lens running 2x extender. Due to “light restrictions” as you put it


I’ve read here that R series cameras sometimes focus stopped down. I don’t know under what circumstances, though.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 13, 2020)

Bonich said:


> Just for helping the phantasies how to use these "crappy smartphone style F11s"
> 700mm (500& 1.4x) F10, ISO200, 1/800sec, 16 years old sensor technology (EOS1D MII)
> Sorry, the sun reflection in the eye is barely visible here in canonrumors.
> View attachment 190773
> ...


And just think how nice that would be with subject tracking IS, which is a real possibility. (If the info is there to track AF, then it is also there for IS. Just need to figure out how to apply it.)


----------



## Dragon (Jun 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The problem is that they have chosen to use very few elements in these new lenses, 9 elements in 6 groups, cf the ancient 400/5.6 which is 7 elements in 6 groups and 10.4" long. That keeps the cost down. To make it shorter, they would have to put in more groups. The 500PF is 19 elements in 11 groups, for example.


You are missing the point that with the optical design of these lenses, it would be easy to make them telescope together and be very compact (and light) for transport. Let's wait and see before drawing conclusions.


----------



## DrToast (Jun 13, 2020)

These strike me as useful landscape lenses. You can get to locations you couldn't normally get and f/11 is no problem.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 13, 2020)

Dragon said:


> You are missing the point that with the optical design of these lenses, it would be easy to make them telescope together and be very compact (and light) for transport. Let's wait and see before drawing conclusions.


The important point is that a lens with few elements has to be longer to give higher image quality. It could be telescoped for carriage and packing, which would have advantages in compactness. But, it would require seals and extra tubing. Telescoping doesn't make them any lighter - in fact, it will make them heavier because it will have to have extra overlapping tubing. We will see when and if the lens is marketed.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 13, 2020)

If these two lenses are basically going to be supersized 400 f5.6L’s I hope they have better minimum focusing distances. Next to the lack of IS that’s my least favorite quality of that lens. It’s easy to get focus lock-out when you are lucky enough to get close to a subject. 

I’ve always found the image quality to be very nice so these could be very similar in that regard. The falloff from max sharpness to background bokeh is nicer on the 400 5.6L than the 100-400’s IMO. The 100-400’s can be a little busy. Particularly with front bokeh if you are shooting through branches, leaves and such.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 13, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> If these two lenses are basically going to be supersized 400 f5.6L’s I hope they have better minimum focusing distances. Next to the lack of IS that’s my least favorite quality of that lens. It’s easy to get focus lock-out when you are lucky enough to get close to a subject.
> 
> I’ve always found the image quality to be very nice so these could be very similar in that regard. The falloff from max sharpness to background bokeh is nicer on the 400 5.6L than the 100-400’s IMO. The 100-400’s can be a little busy. Particularly with front bokeh if you are shooting through branches, leaves and such.


Its 3.5m minimum focal distance is par for the course, only 0.2m longer than the 400mm DO II. The 800/5.6 is 6m, so don't be too hopeful.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Its 3.5m minimum focal distance is par for the course, only 0.2m longer than the 400mm DO II. The 800/5.6 is 6m, so don't be too hopeful.


How do they get the 100-400 to focus so close? That is such a killer feature of that lens.

Edit: I guess that lens has a much more complicated optical design. Not sure I’d trade a close focusing 400 f5.6 for a 600 f11 with a mfd of 4-5 meters but I still might find the 800 interesting even with the possible mfd limitation.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 13, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> How do they get the 100-400 to focus so close? That is such a killer feature of that lens.
> 
> Edit: I guess that lens has a much more complicated optical design. Not sure I’d trade a close focusing 400 f5.6 for a 600 f11 with a mfd of 4-5 meters but I still might find the 800 interesting even with the possible mfd limitation.


There’s a huge amount of focus breathing with the 100-400mm II as you get down to its mfd of 1m. From what I remember, the focal length nearly halves.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> There’s a huge amount of focus breathing with the 100-400mm II as you get down to its mfd of 1m. From what I remember, the focal length nearly halves.


Interesting. I’ll have to check that out next time I have it out. I usually prefocus to the mfd when I’m doing “macro” with the zoom so I’ve never noticed the focus breathing.


----------



## efmshark (Jun 13, 2020)

Not even 20 years ago, I was shooting wildlife with cameras that were barely useable at ISO800 and hopeless at ISO1600 using f/4 and f/5.6 lenses. Modern sensors can give you very decent results at ISO3200 and even ISO6400. As long as the AF system works, I don't see why an f/11 lens wouldn't be usable on a modern camera.


----------



## Joules (Jun 13, 2020)

Here's a thought for the folks still up in arms about this lens:

These f/11 STM seem unlikely to be L lenses, right? So... we'll probably get some nice black Canon super Tele lenses for a change!  

On that note, would they put a green ring on, just because they are DO? Or does the RF series warrant a fresher look?


----------



## RBSfphoto (Jun 14, 2020)

Kit. said:


> The new sensors (from any manufacturer) are not expected to have much greater dynamic range "in conditions without bright light".
> 
> What can still be improved is DR at base ISO (especially with further lowering of base ISO), but it wouldn't help f/11 tele lenses.


I had been thinking that they may take advantage of dgo technology seen in the c300 which as a 16 stop DR compared to the 13.5 in the current R sensor, I had not seen anything recently that suggested we would not continue to see improvement in DR. However I am not an expert in sensor tech nor have I been following what the expectations are for improvement so you may have more info than I do


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 14, 2020)

Having had the good fortune to go on three safaris, I can tell you that a maximum aperture of f11 will not be very useful. Best shooting times will be before/during morning golden hours and during'/after evening golden hours from the perspective of best lighting (unless you are shooting under a canopy). Another thing to keep in mind is that the animals are very inactive during the day and some are hard to find. Those that are visible are usually not doing anything too interesting from a composition point of view. As a bonus, and off topic, if you are going on safari, be sure to get go on at least one night drive- incredible.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 14, 2020)

scottkinfw said:


> Having had the good fortune to go on three safaris, I can tell you that a maximum aperture of f11 will not be very useful. Best shooting times will be before/during morning golden hours and during'/after evening golden hours from the perspective of best lighting (unless you are shooting under a canopy). Another thing to keep in mind is that the animals are very inactive during the day and some are hard to find. Those that are visible are usually not doing anything too interesting from a composition point of view. As a bonus, and off topic, if you are going on safari, be sure to get go on at least one night drive- incredible.


This is definitely not a general safari lens. Zooms are the most useful. The current 100-400mm II or the proposed 100-500mm would be the most useful on a limited budget. But, a longer prime on a second body would be great for birds, which you do see during the day. We travelled with one of us with the zoom and the other with a prime on our last safari.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 14, 2020)

RBSfphoto said:


> I had been thinking that they may take advantage of dgo technology seen in the c300 which as a 16 stop DR compared to the 13.5 in the current R sensor, I had not seen anything recently that suggested we would not continue to see improvement in DR. However I am not an expert in sensor tech nor have I been following what the expectations are for improvement so you may have more info than I do


There are two different problems with DR: one with the low light (and low photoelectron count), where the DR is limited by natural (and unavoidable) photon noise, another is with the good light (and high photoelectron count), where the DR (in video in particular) is limited by speed of the ramp-compare ADC (and by low accuracy of other types of ADC that could be put on the sensor). The DGO technology can only address the latter.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 14, 2020)

scottkinfw said:


> Having had the good fortune to go on three safaris, I can tell you that a maximum aperture of f11 will not be very useful. Best shooting times will be before/during morning golden hours and during'/after evening golden hours from the perspective of best lighting (unless you are shooting under a canopy). Another thing to keep in mind is that the animals are very inactive during the day and some are hard to find. Those that are visible are usually not doing anything too interesting from a composition point of view. As a bonus, and off topic, if you are going on safari, be sure to get go on at least one night drive- incredible.



Hi, 

Where have you been on Safari? Where did you do your night drive? We were planning a trip to Botswana, which has been postponed as a result of the pandemic. We were in Tanzania last year and it was incredible!

One of the interesting parts of being on Safari is capturing the wildlife in its gorgeous natural environment (as opposed to a zoo). I brought mostly primes to Tanzania, and sorely wished that I had brought a zoom, since I enjoyed taking photos of the wildlife that ranged from close portraits to environmental shots (so many lens changes, even with 2 bodies). Many photos of quite distant subjects showed atmospheric haze. For this reason, I am much more excited to see what the 100-500mm lens will be like than these f11 lenses.

That said, I am thoroughly intrigued by these unexpected lenses, and hope to be pleasantly surprised by their combination of size, weight, and performance. Time will tell!


----------



## deleteme (Jun 15, 2020)

Enthusiasts want exotic, fast lenses. The fact is that amateurs are drawn to more capable cameras with the notion of getting better photos. For many that means long lenses. High prices turn them off. These lenses will bring a lot on board to the surprise of many “sophisticated “ photographers.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 15, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> Enthusiasts want exotic, fast lenses. The fact is that amateurs are drawn to more capable cameras with the notion of getting better photos. For many that means long lenses. High prices turn them off. These lenses will bring a lot on board to the surprise of many “sophisticated “ photographers.


Actually, "enthusiast" and "sophisticated" are words that are too kind. Many in the "exotic lens is the only one I would buy" crowd are in the hipster/yuppie bin and their goal is more to impress others than to take good pictures. I can afford just about any lens I want (I have an 800L among many others), but I buy lenses either for a purpose or sometimes for fun (like a 1000mm Nikon mirror lens). I think these reported new lenses will be very useful for many applications and they will sell very well because they will likely offer good to excellent performance for a sensible price, and most of all they will be small and light with lots of reach and that fills a HUGE hole in the market.


----------



## padam (Jun 15, 2020)

DrToast said:


> These strike me as useful landscape lenses. You can get to locations you couldn't normally get and f/11 is no problem.


At that point, you might as well carry a teleconverter for a 100-400 II (or the new 100-500) and call it a day instead of limiting yourself more with that field-of-view.
These lenses will be a lot longer, too, as they are non-extending primes, more fiddly to pack in. (But they won't weigh much)

One advantage is that the blur should be much better than any zoom + teleconverter combination, but the MFD is unknown at this point.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 15, 2020)

padam said:


> At that point, you might as well carry a teleconverter for a 100-400 II (or the new 100-500) and call it a day instead of limiting yourself more with that field-of-view.
> These lenses will be a lot longer, too, as they are non-extending primes, more fiddly to pack in. (But they won't weigh much)
> 
> *One advantage is that the blur should be much better than any zoom + teleconverter combination*, but the MFD is unknown at this point.


Do you think that a 9 element simple lens will beat a sophisticated optical 21 *elements* contained in 16 groups EF 100-400 II L lens + x2 TC in bokeh department?

A genuine question.

@400mm f/5.6:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/l...i/sample-images/5D3_5333-bokeh-400mm-1200.jpg

with a x1.4 extender:

https://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/canon-ef-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6l-usm-ii-review/


----------



## padam (Jun 15, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Do you think that a 9 element simple lens will beat a sophisticated optical 21 *elements* contained in 16 groups EF 100-400 II L lens + x2 TC in bokeh department?
> 
> A genuine question.
> 
> ...


_Generally speaking_, prime lenses have better blur as opposed to zoom lenses and the longer focal length you have (with the bare lens), the smoother the bokeh gets again. So an 800mm has a lot of potential even with f/11

And having less elements is not a bad thing, the DO element negates the use of several others to control aberrations.
A lot of vintage lenses have much nicer rendering than modern ones, because they are much simpler and don't use aspherical elements (so they have more aberrations)

The 400/DO bokeh was a bit nervous at times, the 400/DO II improved it.

But, of course, we need to see samples.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> There’s a huge amount of focus breathing with the 100-400mm II as you get down to its mfd of 1m. From what I remember, the focal length nearly halves.


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


----------



## Vilacom (Jun 15, 2020)

Last year I was lucky enough to take a trip to the Galapagos Islands and I have to say I would have KILLED to have one of these lenses for that trip. Generally when our group would go out to see animals it was in the late morning and early afternoon and the sun was just insanely bright and you really can't be carrying a massive lens around since you're hiking all over the place and jumping on and off boats. 

The fantastic range of 600mm or 800mm would let you get amazing shots of the animals and the sunlight there at the equator is so bright that f/11 would still easily let you get amazing shots at low ISO


----------



## AlanF (Jun 15, 2020)

Vilacom said:


> Last year I was lucky enough to take a trip to the Galapagos Islands and I have to say I would have KILLED to have one of these lenses for that trip. Generally when our group would go out to see animals it was in the late morning and early afternoon and the sun was just insanely bright and you really can't be carrying a massive lens around since you're hiking all over the place and jumping on and off boats.
> 
> The fantastic range of 600mm or 800mm would let you get amazing shots of the animals and the sunlight there at the equator is so bright that f/11 would still easily let you get amazing shots at low ISO


We went to the Galapagos last year and found the 100-400mm II on a 5DSR more than sufficient for reach, everything was just so close. So close in fact, I often had to switch to the wider end of 24-600mm camera as the wildlife have no fear of humans. Even the birds in flight generally came close enough. I researched it first and decided to leave the 400mm DO II + 2xTC at home, fortunately. We had a very good guide and chose a boat that generally was one of the first to dock in the morning and another trip later in the afternoon. We must have visited different places as I don't think I would have used a 600/800 f/11 once.


----------



## chellm (Jun 15, 2020)

f. 16 rule – full sun from 1,5 hr after sunrise to 1,5 hr before sunset – no veil from light clouds – light behind photographer shoulder –

parallel of Rome and Hollywood, CA

(assuming camera will have intermediate speeds)



Camera set at 100 Iso – EV 15

1/100 - f. 16

1/200 – f. 11

_Tripod needed

Will IS be of any help?_





Camera set at 200 Iso – EV 16

1/200 – f. 16

1/400 – f. 11

_Tripod needed

Will IS be of any help ?_



Camera set at 400 Iso – EV 17

1/400 – f. 16

1/800 – f. 11

_Tripod needed

Will IS be of any help ?_



Camera set at 800 Iso – EV 18

1/800 – f.16

1/1500 – f. 11

_Tripod needed for 1/800 speed

Will IS be of any help at 1/800 ?_



Camera set at 1600 Iso – EV 19

1/1500 – f. 16

1/3000 – f.11

_Tripod not needed for young photographer

IS will help_



What subjects are plausibles ?

Mountains in long distance,

Skyline of a city,

Tennis court between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm,

Marina with boats,

Architectural details from down below the building,

Natural landscapes

City Landscapes allowed there is enough space head of lens

Some Aerial Photography

_My opinion:
It seems a solution as the very inexpensive fish-eye adapter of early and middle of '70ies to Mount on lenses filter ring _


----------



## Dragon (Jun 15, 2020)

chellm said:


> Landscapes allowed there is enough space head of lens





chellm said:


> f. 16 rule – full sun from 1,5 hr after sunrise to 1,5 hr before sunset – no veil from light clouds – light behind photographer shoulder –
> 
> parallel of Rome and Hollywood, CA
> 
> ...



This whole presentation is irrelevant in light of 7-8 stops of IS, so why offer it?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 15, 2020)

Dragon said:


> This whole presentation is irrelevant in light of 7-8 stops of IS, so why offer it?


Well the obvious counterpoint feels IS being no help for subject movement would be one. But over and above that the previous poster is simply illuminating the situations in which you are not going to get useful shutter speeds, which is many. So let’s all hope high iso improvements are on the way...


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 15, 2020)

I know many posters here aren’t interested in video but the highest shutter speed you’re going to be using for video with any of the existing R cams is probably going to be 1/250th so f11 will be comfortably in range for a variety of lighting conditions. IS and STM AF will also be helpful. Just saying. At ISO 100 on a sunny day you’ll still be using NDs.


----------



## chellm (Jun 16, 2020)

Hope I can share soon your optimism about IS..


----------



## masterpix (Jun 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


It is rather simple, they also want "shallow pocket" people to be able to buy 600-800mm lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2020)

Just watched this video, very smart take on the subject.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 17, 2020)

You could just put a 2x tele on the 400 f4.6L and then you’d have a 800 f11 but good luck trying to focus that on a moving target with a 5D mark IV. I thought about trying that a couple days ago. Stoping down an f5.6 isn’t really the same thing but I think what he did still had some merit.
I guess we have to assume Canon believes the f11 lenses will focus on the new R’s. That’s as big a concern as the ISO noise IMO. I’ve focused f11 rigs in live view on my SLRs and it’s really slow but I’m sure the Rs will be faster. The question is will they be fast enough. We don’t all bait our subjects with meal worms although I’m thinking about giving that a try based on his results.
I’d expect, as I think most reasonable people would, these lenses will work great is some circumstances, they’ll be challenging to use in others but with acceptable results and there will be times when they won’t work at all. Just like pretty much every other piece of gear I’ve ever owned.


----------



## Pape (Jun 17, 2020)

Stm focus doesnt quite sounds like they plan this for fast moving targets. 
Most hobby birdshooters dream about nice portraits pics ,and this 800 f11 lense will deliver professional quality bird portraits i bet.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 17, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Just watched this video, very smart take on the subject.


I didn't go to the YouTube page to see comments. Maybe I will later. Did he set the aperture to f/8 to get f/11 with the 1.4x, or did he set it to f/11, as it looks, and wind up at an effective f/16?


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 17, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I didn't go to the YouTube page to see comments. Maybe I will later. Did he set the aperture to f/8 to get f/11 with the 1.4x, or did he set it to f/11, as it looks, and wind up at an effective f/16?



Canon extenders communicate with the body and take care of adding the extra stop(s) to the aperture value displayed. Unless you tape the pin


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Canon extenders communicate with the body and take care of adding the extra stop(s) to the aperture value displayed. Unless you tape the pin


That's not true for all EF lens and body combinations. The newest lens and body I have, the 1DX II and the TS-E 50 don't tell each other anything when I use a TC. With a 1.4 it still reports and indicates 50mm @ f2.8, however my 300 f2.8 IS from 2005 does report f4 as the fastest aperture when used with the same TC on the camera LCD in real time and in EXIF.

I'd expect the testers EF 500 f4 and EF 400 f5.6 to be correctly reporting the adjusted and therefore correct aperture both in EXIF and on the camera controls.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Just watched this video, very smart take on the subject.


Sorry PFD, I don't like spending 13 minutes watching a TouTube. If you summarise in one sentence it will be a mission of mercy for me.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 17, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Sorry PFD, I don't like spending 13 minutes watching a TouTube. If you summarise in one sentence it will be a mission of mercy for me.



If you know what you are doing, f/11 isn't impossible to use for good looking pictures.

or:

If you scatter mealworms, birds will flock to there.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2020)

I really don't understand all this fuss. I , like others here, have been using 800mm f/8 for years (400mm DO II + 2xTC) and this is just a stop lower. A native prime should be sharper than one of half the length with a 2xTC (which gives a 20-30% hit on mtfs). I wouldn't willingly use a 800mm for BIF anyway. Having said that, I'd walk around wit a 100-500mm f/7.1 (with a 1.4xTC at hand) any day.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 18, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> Hi,
> 
> Where have you been on Safari? Where did you do your night drive? We were planning a trip to Botswana, which has been postponed as a result of the pandemic. We were in Tanzania last year and it was incredible!
> 
> ...


Twice to Serengeti Africadreamsafaris.com did an awesome job for great prices-gave me the vehicle and driver and took us out for as long and far as we wanted to go. Most awesome numbers and diversity) twice- the best. Went to South Africa/Greater Kruger Park. Didn't hold a match to Tanzania/Serengeti in terms of diversity or numbers! S. Africa had good numbers of leopards however, but cost way more.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 18, 2020)

AlanF said:


> This is definitely not a general safari lens. Zooms are the most useful. The current 100-400mm II or the proposed 100-500mm would be the most useful on a limited budget. But, a longer prime on a second body would be great for birds, which you do see during the day. We travelled with one of us with the zoom and the other with a prime on our last safari.





AlanF said:


> This is definitely not a general safari lens. Zooms are the most useful. The current 100-400mm II or the proposed 100-500mm would be the most useful on a limited budget. But, a longer prime on a second body would be great for birds, which you do see during the day. We travelled with one of us with the zoom and the other with a prime on our last safari.


I took along the 300 2.8L II and it produced incredibly sharp images with great color and contrast, no distortion. I recently got the most recent 100-400L for an upcoming (I hope, if COVID doesn't prevent it), and haven't been as impressed with the above. What is your opinion on that? May I have a not great copy of the lens?
Thx for your imput.

sek


----------



## Dragon (Jun 18, 2020)

scottkinfw said:


> I took along the 300 2.8L II and it produced incredibly sharp images with great color and contrast, no distortion. I recently got the most recent 100-400L for an upcoming (I hope, if COVID doesn't prevent it), and haven't been as impressed with the above. What is your opinion on that? May I have a not great copy of the lens?
> Thx for your imput.
> 
> sek


The 300 f/2.8L II is one of the sharpest lenses in existence. Unlikely any zoom will match its performance, but then it doesn't zoom, either. The 100-400L II is a very good lens and quite sharp for a zoom, but it will never be in the same league with the 300 f/32.8 L II.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 18, 2020)

scottkinfw said:


> I took along the 300 2.8L II and it produced incredibly sharp images with great color and contrast, no distortion. I recently got the most recent 100-400L for an upcoming (I hope, if COVID doesn't prevent it), and haven't been as impressed with the above. What is your opinion on that? May I have a not great copy of the lens?
> Thx for your imput.
> 
> sek


I used to have a 300/2.8 II and it was a cracker of a lens. My copies of the 100-400mm II weren't far off it, and The Digital Pictures tests show the same at 300mm, 400/420 and 560/600mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
What body are you using the 100-400mm II on? Have you AFMAdjusted it?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 18, 2020)

That's funny because I thought The Digital Picture samples illustrated that the naked 300 was markedly 'better' than the 100-400 at 300mm and f5.6.









Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## jam05 (Jun 18, 2020)

HenryL said:


> I've been thinking about this since I read the original post earlier today. Can't come up with a single place where I'd find either one of these lenses useful. Other than not costing $13K, I can't imagine any benefit.


"Other than not costing $13k" And you sorta write that as an afterthought. Being that all EF lenses are usable with the R system as originally was the concept of the flange size. Those long lenses are still useable. However they are huge in comparison. Until Canon continues to add to the family I would use my EF long lens.


----------



## jam05 (Jun 18, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I have used my 100-400 with a 2X TC, and that is f/11 equivalent at 800mm. Obviously, it is for brightly lit objects that are not moving. With the 5 stop IS on the EOS R, it would be possible to use a relatively slow shutter speed and keep ISO's down as long as there is little or no motion. It might even be possible to get some clear BIF shots by sortng thru 8K video frames.
> 
> If the lens is reasonably priced, and smaller and light, I'd at least be interested as useful for having a long telephoto with me while traveling.
> 
> ...


If not for the 5D target shooter, Canon might have had time to perfect that slider. I am still kinda upset we dont get the backlit joystick however from the 1dx2. That would have been sweet.


----------



## jam05 (Jun 18, 2020)

Canon most likely has more than one lens designer. More than likely these lenses were not designed by their prime lens designer. I wouldn't make such a big deal about it. Use the EF lens until the faster higher end version is released. We sorta got spoiled with first few primes.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 19, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I used to have a 300/2.8 II and it was a cracker of a lens. My copies of the 100-400mm II weren't far off it, and The Digital Pictures tests show the same at 300mm, 400/420 and 560/600mm.
> https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1
> https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
> https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
> What body are you using the 100-400mm II on? Have you AFMAdjusted it?


1DXII and yes calibrated it! Thank you so much for the links- I appreciate the time and work you put in.
sek


----------



## AlanF (Jun 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That's funny because I thought The Digital Picture samples illustrated that the naked 300 was markedly 'better' than the 100-400 at 300mm and f5.6.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn’t buy the 300mm f/2.8 II to shoot at f/5.6! That beautiful hunk of a lens like all my telephotos was used wide open for the majority of the time. Have you used both of these telephotos? Most of the time I used the 300/2.8 with a 1.4 or 2xTC. The lens was the best way of getting a hand holdable longer telephoto with good IS until the 400 DO II came along.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 19, 2020)

I spent an hour or so tonight parsing the metadata on esposure, ISO and aperture of many of my favorite shots with my 600 f4 both as a bare lens and with converters and I have to say f11 is going to be right on the edge IMO. If I used ISO 3200 as an upper-limit; I found f/11 would have required a compromised shutter speed on many of my photos. An extra stop of noise, ISO 6400, brought almost everything into the envelope. I'd rarely have been getting an ISO under 800. An EV that yields an ISO of 800 at f4 (my target) is going to be ISO 6400 at f11. That's not to say that ISO 6400 is never acceptable, but I don't know that I'd want all of my photos to be taken that way. I'm not saying that you aren't going to be able to get some nice photos with these lenses but I think they are going to be more of a challenge then some folks want to believe. They allow 1/4th of the light transmission of Canon's slowest existing telephoto. That's not a small thing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 19, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I didn’t buy the 300mm f/2.8 II to shoot at f/5.6! That beautiful hunk of a lens like all my telephotos was used wide open for the majority of the time. Have you used both of these telephotos? Most of the time I used the 300/2.8 with a 1.4 or 2xTC. The lens was the best way of getting a hand holdable longer telephoto with good IS until the 400 DO II came along.


Neither did I, but I see little point in comparing an f2.8 lens to an f5.6 lens at f2.8 when you are comparing IQ, primarily resolution. It is important to know the faster lens doesn’t fall apart wider open, and we all know it doesn’t, but I feel comparing like for like has far more value, after all, if you need f2.8 it doesn’t matter how good the f5.6 lens is it isn‘t an option.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Neither did I, but I see little point in comparing an f2.8 lens to an f5.6 lens at f2.8 when you are comparing IQ, primarily resolution. It is important to know the faster lens doesn’t fall apart wider open, and we all know it doesn’t, but I feel comparing like for like has far more value, after all, if you need f2.8 it doesn’t matter how good the f5.6 lens is it isn‘t an option.


Scott just wants to know whether his 100-400mm II is a bad copy because it compared badly with his 300mm f.2.8 mm II. I told him my experience and gave him 3 links to where he can compare his with two copies on a website. And that’s all my posts are Intended to be about. And he thanked me for my efforts.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 19, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> I don't particularly like this trend of slower lenses we are seeing from Canon. But I could make use of the 800 f/11. I shot my 400DOII/2x at f/8 more than at 560 or 400. I did all sorts of birding including BIF with that combo. I shoot at f/9 all the time with my Sony 200-600/1.4TC and that is for things like swallows in flight. For more static perched birds it is easy to shoot down at 1/200-1/400 with these newer IS/IBIS systems and most of the time (with a few insurance shots) you will get good results without motion blur.
> 
> I don't see much point in the 600/11....a 600/8 (which is also in the patent) would have made more sense so you could have versatility with the 1.4TC to go up to 840/11 if you wanted to but also have f/8 at 600 if 600 is enough. I've always felt the 600/4 lenses made more sense than 800/5.6 lenses for this same type of reasoning.



I agree. Depending on price level and IQ, the 800/11 *MAY* be worth a look. I've been looking for a reasonably-priced, sharp supertele for YEARS now. That said, given the relative newness of the R system I may wait and see if a faster f8 version is on the horizon that may be in the 3K range and still manageable weight-wise.

A 600/8 would have made more sense to me as well...who knows, maybe one is coming later, and this f11 version is supposedly a "budget kit". Ideally I'd like to see a 600 5.6 DO - probably good balance between price and weight.


----------



## Joepatbob (Jun 20, 2020)

could the f/11 be a fooling tactic? maybe these will be really fast lenses but they want to keep it a secret until closer to release


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 20, 2020)

Joepatbob said:


> could the f/11 be a fooling tactic? maybe these will be really fast lenses but they want to keep it a secret until closer to release


Let's hope so!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 20, 2020)

Joepatbob said:


> could the f/11 be a fooling tactic? maybe these will be really fast lenses but they want to keep it a secret until closer to release


No, the web page information and manuals are already printed and distributed. The Certification agencies have approved them (thats public).

I'm thinking of dumping my 100-400mm L II if they are lighter and cheaper. I have a difficult time with the weight from that lens as I get older and weaker, that means it does not get used very much. Same for my 70-200mmL, its miserable getting old! I do occasionally need that f/2.8, but not a lot.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 20, 2020)

Joepatbob said:


> could the f/11 be a fooling tactic? maybe these will be really fast lenses but they want to keep it a secret until closer to release


Left out the decimal between the ones?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 20, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> No, the web page information and manuals are already printed and distributed. The Certification agencies have approved them (thats public).
> 
> I'm thinking of dumping my 100-400mm L II if they are lighter and cheaper. I have a difficult time with the weight from that lens as I get older and weaker, that means it does not get used very much. Same for my 70-200mmL, its miserable getting old! I do occasionally need that f/2.8, but not a lot.


"Dumping" is not quite the right word to be used with the 100-400mm II. How about: "It's time I should be passing on my magnificent but increasingly lightly used 100-400mm II to a younger generation who can take full advantage of its contrast and resolution".


----------



## canonmike (Jun 20, 2020)

In the absence of actually being able to try these new RF super teles, I cannot imagine a practical use for F11 in my photography, so will closely follow the hands on reviews, once they are released. Hopefully, someone will show me why I need them. Meanwhile, I would be hard pressed to pre-order either of them. However, I must note that, given market conditions, it's encouraging to note that Canon is obviously committed to the R series mirrorless line, as they continue to develop new RF glass.


----------



## canonmike (Jun 20, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Left out the decimal between the ones?


Ha!.....I do like the way you think.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 20, 2020)

Joepatbob said:


> could the f/11 be a fooling tactic? maybe these will be really fast lenses but they want to keep it a secret until closer to release


Maybe it will be a single 10-1000/1.0 zoom.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 20, 2020)

dcm said:


> Autofocus was the major hindrance at the time so most lenses had a max aperture of f/5.6.



All FD lenses had a max aperture of f/5.6 or wider, with the exception of a few catadioptric lenses, and I doubt AF was a consideration here.


----------



## dcm (Jun 20, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> All FD lenses had a max aperture of f/5.6 or wider, with the exception of a few catadioptric lenses, and I doubt AF was a consideration here.



Poorly worded on my part. I meant that AF required an aperture of f/5.6 or wider so they didn't make EF lenses with apertures like f/11. AF has improved quite a bit.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 23, 2020)

I think its potentially a clever idea from Canon if they are not expensive. 
It's perfect for beginners shooting the moon or doing wildlife during the day. 
They won't be for serious wildlife photographers or sports shooters but great for an introduction into those genres.
I will be interested in the size and weight. It might be handy for travel.


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 25, 2020)

After finding out that these are really coming, I decided to spend an entire day shooting birds with my two 600mm lenses with and without 1.4TC and stopping down to f/11 for all shots. So some 600/11 and some 840/11 shooting. I dealt with the SS and ISO as best I could.

In the end I managed to bring home a nice selection of bird photos from that day including shooting perched GHOs in a fairly deep forest setting.

I realize you won't be able to do everything you could possibly want with these f/11 lenses (and that is why I still own a 600/4) but you can still come back with a lot of good images. Background selection is critical. Topaz Denoise will be your best friend especially on the R5's 45MP sensor.

I've been doing lots of f/9 shooting over the past 7 months with 200-600/1.4TC so 2/3 more stops wasn't too hard to adapt to. I've also done lots and lots of f/8 shooting over the years with 600/4, 500/4, 400/4, and 100-400/5.6 lenses once I add the respective TCs.

Now that we know these are going to pack small/short (and most likely shoot long), I could see them being something I'd pick up to go lightweight like I currently do with 500PF. I'd just go for the 800/11. Don't see any need for 600/11. A 600/8 would have been ideal.

I guess the alternative route would be to go 100-500 and use 1.4TC to get 700 f/10 as a sort of in between. Probably a much more expensive lens but much more versatile and still packs small.


----------



## springle (Jun 25, 2020)

Sorry I didn't read the entire thread. However, I am disturbed by the lack of attention to focusing speed. Especially birds in flight. Cameras focus with the lens wide open. That's not the same thing at setting an aperture to f11 on an f4.0 lens. That is, I find it irrelevant to recount using a lens at f11. The real issue is how fast can a lens focus when the it is wide open at f11? I use a 7DII with a Sigma 150-600mm Sport and have tried it with their new 1.4 teleconverter, making it f8.8 when wide open. For birds I must use the center spot for focusing. For the above setup with the converter, the focusing was too slow to be useful. Unless there is some new tech allowing for rapid autofocus when a lens is wide open at f11, I fail to see a use. Just crop a high MP image instead. Meanwhile still pondering dumping the Canon gear and switching to Sony which has the A7R IV on sale now. In crop mode this obtains 26 MP images (more than the 7DII) and I would expect quicker focus. $600 to convert the mount to Sony, though. I.e., if I'm going to move to mirrorless (beyond my handy Sony RX10 IV), it may be an opportune time to switch to Sony. Canon is just not meeting my photography needs.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 25, 2020)

The more I think about these lenses, the more I think about this lens: 



I always wondered why it seemed like the 600mm F/4L IS DO was so close to a final design when announced by Canon, and then went *totally,* utterly silent. I wonder if they switched gears to develop that lens for the RF mount, and made the 600mm F/4L IS III as a stop-gap, final EF version?

If Canon is using DO on these lower end lenses already, I'm almost entirely sure that when a 600mm F/4L comes to the RF mount, it won't be much bigger than the original 600mm F/4L IS DO lens they had on display all those years ago. That size is just *amazing* for a 600mm lens, and it makes me wonder if they could do a DO 400mm f/2.8 even shorter than the mock-up 600 and about the size of a 300mm f/2.8.

Exciting stuff to see going forward.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 25, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> The more I think about these lenses, the more I think about this lens:
> View attachment 191008
> 
> 
> ...


The 400mm DO II is the same width as the 300mm f/2.8 II and 16mm shorter. An f/2.8 400mm DO would have to be about 40% wider.


----------



## Terry Danks (Jun 28, 2020)

I've hauled around the EF600 f/4 L IS on a Gitzo 410 with Wimberley head. No fun! No fun at all!
Also an 800 f/5.6 Nikkor. Also no fun.
I don't expect these new lenses to replace the aforementioned behemoths but I am excited to see how they pan out. And the new bodies do high ISO WAY better than the bodies I was using on the big lenses.
The fact that these f/11 lenses will not be the first choice at the olympics, or for birds in flight does not mean they have no place.
So, Canon, bring 'em on! I am very interested!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 29, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> The more I think about these lenses, the more I think about this lens:
> View attachment 191008
> 
> 
> ...



This looks exciting but I would rather see DO tech being used to make 800mm and 1000mm professional lenses possible. The 800mm f/5.6 hasn't been updated in so long and it would make a great DO lens to show something really special in the field of 'here's what we couldn't do before'.


----------



## Terry Danks (Jun 29, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> The more I think about these lenses, the more I think about this lens:
> View attachment 191008
> 
> 
> I always wondered why it seemed like the 600mm F/4L IS DO was so close to a final design when announced by Canon, and then went *totally,* utterly silent.



What is that lens? You imply it is a mock up of a DO version of a 600 f/4? If so, why no green ring as opposed to an L red ring?
How many years ago was this thing displayed?
It is VERY interesting!


----------



## Rule556 (Jun 30, 2020)

Vilacom said:


> Last year I was lucky enough to take a trip to the Galapagos Islands and I have to say I would have KILLED to have one of these lenses for that trip. Generally when our group would go out to see animals it was in the late morning and early afternoon and the sun was just insanely bright and you really can't be carrying a massive lens around since you're hiking all over the place and jumping on and off boats.
> 
> The fantastic range of 600mm or 800mm would let you get amazing shots of the animals and the sunlight there at the equator is so bright that f/11 would still easily let you get amazing shots at low ISO



Yeah... That’s exactly the first thing I thought. We’re planning to do that trip within the next five years, and I’m already trying to decide the gear I’ll be using. I’ve been eying the new RF 100-400mm L as a perfect pair for the 24-105 f/4, and I assumed that a specialized long white just wouldn’t be justifiable, either in size, or in cost. The 800mm f/11 could possibly be though, if it’s small and inexpensive enough. 

I suspect there will be a lot of enthusiasts and travelers that will buy these lenses if it makes sense price-wise to jump into these lenses.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 30, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> Yeah... That’s exactly the first thing I thought. We’re planning to do that trip within the next five years, and I’m already trying to decide the gear I’ll be using. I’ve been eying the new RF 100-400mm L as a perfect pair for the 24-105 f/4, and I assumed that a specialized long white just wouldn’t be justifiable, either in size, or in cost. The 800mm f/11 could possibly be though, if it’s small and inexpensive enough.
> 
> I suspect there will be a lot of enthusiasts and travelers that will buy these lenses if it makes sense price-wise to jump into these lenses.



What I'm getting out of all of this is that it's probably a great starter lens (maybe even a great lens, period, depending on the IQ) _provided you have really bright light_. For woodland shooting like many of the birders here do, with lots of shaded areas, maybe not, but for blowtorch areas like the Galapagos out of the trees (or places in Australia/Southeast Asia, perhaps), not a bad item.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 30, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> Yeah... That’s exactly the first thing I thought. We’re planning to do that trip within the next five years, and I’m already trying to decide the gear I’ll be using. I’ve been eying the new RF 100-400mm L as a perfect pair for the 24-105 f/4, and I assumed that a specialized long white just wouldn’t be justifiable, either in size, or in cost. The 800mm f/11 could possibly be though, if it’s small and inexpensive enough.
> 
> I suspect there will be a lot of enthusiasts and travelers that will buy these lenses if it makes sense price-wise to jump into these lenses.


I wrote in an earlier post but will repeat it as it could be useful to you, the crucial telephoto lens for the Galapagos will be a 100-400mm or the new 100-500mm as most of what you shoot is incredibly close with the wildlife unafraid of humans. In our trip last year, I never needed 800mm , and my specialty is bird photography where in most places you need reach. And 100mm is too long for a lot of what you see.

Most strangely, Vilacom who recommended the 800mm for the Galapagos joined 15 June for that post and hasn't logged in since.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 30, 2020)

Terry Danks said:


> What is that lens? You imply it is a mock up of a DO version of a 600 f/4? If so, why no green ring as opposed to an L red ring?
> How many years ago was this thing displayed?
> It is VERY interesting!


It was a 600mm F/4L IS DO lens Canon showed off in September of 2015. Five years ago already!









Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS DO BR USM Lens Prototype Images and Details


Canon showed off the EF 600mm f/4L DO BR lens today at the Canon Expo in New York. It is substantially shorter than the current EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM lens thanks to the diffractive optics inside.…




photographybay.com





At the time they had a functional prototype, and I can't imagine it takes 5 years to develop the final product. I truly think they decided to save this design for the RF mount and wait for the RF 1dx equivalent.


----------



## Terry Danks (Jun 30, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> It was a 600mm F/4L IS DO lens Canon showed off in September of 2015. Five years ago already!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was unaware of this. Very interesting! Canon may well have more surprises in store for us! 
Thanks for the reply . . . and the link!


----------



## Rule556 (Jul 1, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I wrote in an earlier post but will repeat it as it could be useful to you, the crucial telephoto lens for the Galapagos will be a 100-400mm or the new 100-500mm as most of what you shoot is incredibly close with the wildlife unafraid of humans. In our trip last year, I never needed 800mm , and my specialty is bird photography where in most places you need reach. And 100mm is too long for a lot of what you see.
> 
> Most strangely, Vilacom who recommended the 800mm for the Galapagos joined 15 June for that post and hasn't logged in since.



Thank you. I appreciate your advice. I saw your post right after I posted. I currently carry my RF 24-105 f/4L and my EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II USM. This setup works for 90% of everything I do, so I’m definitely saving up for the new 100-500 for that trip (I’ve been wanting an L in that range for a long time). Can’t ever really see needing bigger glass, and if I do, I’ll rent.

I see a lot of wealthy people buying these primes for major life trips who aren‘t using their equipment for anything else. I think they’ll make Canon quite a bit of money. I think they’ll get a lot of use by videographers as well. Depending of course on the price.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 1, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> Thank you. I appreciate your advice. I saw your post right after I posted. I currently carry my RF 24-105 f/4L and my EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II USM. This setup works for 90% of everything I do, so I’m definitely saving up for the new 100-500 for that trip (I’ve been wanting an L in that range for a long time). Can’t ever really see needing bigger glass, and if I do, I’ll rent.
> 
> I see a lot of wealthy people buying these primes for major life trips who aren‘t using their equipment for anything else. I think they’ll make Canon quite a bit of money. I think they’ll get a lot of use by videographers as well. Depending of course on the price.


For us the visit to the Galapagos was the adventure of a lifetime, so I encourage you in your planning. If I were to go again and took an R, a 100-500mm would replace my favourite 100-400mm and I would take TCs as well to give an option of going to longer if necessary.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 1, 2020)

Vilacom said:


> Last year I was lucky enough to take a trip to the Galapagos Islands and I have to say I would have KILLED to have one of these lenses for that trip. Generally when our group would go out to see animals it was in the late morning and early afternoon and the sun was just insanely bright and you really can't be carrying a massive lens around since you're hiking all over the place and jumping on and off boats.
> 
> The fantastic range of 600mm or 800mm would let you get amazing shots of the animals and the sunlight there at the equator is so bright that f/11 would still easily let you get amazing shots at low ISO


I was there a while ago and I found the the 70-200 was more than enough and that I often had to swap to the 24-70. I never once put the teleconverter on the 70-200 although if I had been serious about BIF then withoutbt a doubt a longer lens would have been nice.


----------



## Scott_7D (Jul 1, 2020)

I haven't logged in this site in forever, but I've been reading a lot since the impending release of the R5/6. Really looking forward to switching from a 7D2 to the R6 myself, as long as price is right. 

Anyway, I decided to post because I haven't seen anyone mention this in the recent threads about the new slow, long lenses: the initial patents that were shown had both a 600/11 and a 600/8. The leaked image of the new lineup shows what looks to be the 600 being about the same diameter as the 800 and 100-500L. Anyone but me thinking it's actually a 600/8? 

If it were f11, it should have at most a 67mm front thread, given 600/11 is about 55mm. I'd expect the lens to be a fair bit thinner than the 7xmm diameter of the other 2. Having it at f8 also makes more sense for the new TCs, at least the 1.4x could be used with AF on both the 600 and 100-500L. 

Discuss, lol.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 1, 2020)

Scott_7D said:


> I haven't logged in this site in forever, but I've been reading a lot since the impending release of the R5/6. Really looking forward to switching from a 7D2 to the R6 myself, as long as price is right.
> 
> Anyway, I decided to post because I haven't seen anyone mention this in the recent threads about the new slow, long lenses: the initial patents that were shown had both a 600/11 and a 600/8. The leaked image of the new lineup shows what looks to be the 600 being about the same diameter as the 800 and 100-500L. Anyone but me thinking it's actually a 600/8?
> 
> ...


A 600 f8 would make far more sense. And it would be a great compromise but I imagin it would be north of 4k


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 1, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> A 600 f8 would make far more sense. And it would be a great compromise but I imagin it would be north of 4k


I don’t see why, a 600 f8 is only slightly larger than a 400 f5.6 which Canon make and sell for under $1,200. I’d think Canon could easily make a very high quality 600mm f8 for under $2,500, which I think would be a much better compromise.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 1, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> A 600 f8 would make far more sense. And it would be a great compromise but I imagin it would be north of 4k


Wouldn't a 400mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x teleconverter give you a 560mm f/8 equivalent for a lot less money? Wouldn't a 2x on 400mm give you 800mm f/11?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 2, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I don’t see why, a 600 f8 is only slightly larger than a 400 f5.6 which Canon make and sell for under $1,200. I’d think Canon could easily make a very high quality 600mm f8 for under $2,500, which I think would be a much better compromise.


Good point. Although it is a very old lens but you are correct


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

Leaks are finally coming out. *The two slow superteles appear to be collapsible for smaller bag carry*. It looks like a zoom when extended (i.e. in use as a 600 or 800 prime) but the entire lens's control set extends outward -- control ring, focusing and all -- rather than the inner barrel extending like we're used to seeing on zooms. Nutty and kinda exciting.

Presume CR Guy will post it once he verifies so I shan't drop pics here.

- A


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jul 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I don’t see why, a 600 f8 is only slightly larger than a 400 f5.6 which Canon make and sell for under $1,200. I’d think Canon could easily make a very high quality 600mm f8 for under $2,500, which I think would be a much better compromise.


If the new lenses are popular maybe we'd see that as an L lens. L build quality, AF and optics and I'd buy that in a heartbeat for $2500. That might throw a little too much shade on the big whites for Canon.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Leaks are finally coming out. *The two slow superteles appear to be collapsible for smaller bag carry*. It looks like a zoom when extended (i.e. in use as a 600 or 800 prime) but the entire lens's control set extends outward -- control ring, focusing and all -- rather than the inner barrel extending like we're used to seeing on zooms. Nutty and kinda exciting.
> 
> Presume CR Guy will post it once he verifies so I shan't drop pics here.
> 
> - A


I still think they are an odd way for cannon to go but............ If canon have produced an affordable 600 and 800 prime with excellent IQ that is collapsable for travelling(albeit with a limiting max aperture) then I will still be impressed. But the IQ will have to be noticeably better than the third party 150-600's for it to be a good choice(at least the 600 will be. The 800 will have an advantaged based on it's focal length)


----------



## Joules (Jul 6, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> But the IQ will have to be noticeably better than the third party 150-600's for it to be a good choice(at least the 600 will be. The 800 will have an advantaged based on it's focal length)


I'm not sure if just having the focal length advantage will translate to a real world advantage for the 800 f/11. It does have only a 72 mm aperture, vs 95 mm on the 150-600 mm third party options. So with a high MP sensor and a good copy, they could still outperform it.

But those lenses will be much lighter. And I am still betting that they will be just marginally more expensive than the third party zooms.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> I'm not sure if just having the focal length advantage will translate to a real world advantage for the 800 f/11. It does have only a 72 mm aperture, vs 95 mm on the 150-600 mm third party options. So with a high MP sensor and a good copy, they could still outperform it.
> 
> But those lenses will be much lighter. And I am still betting that they will be just marginally more expensive than the third party zooms.


It is more that it has a 200mm Fl advantage over the 150-600offerings so that gives it a small factor of difference that the 600 wont have. having now seen the images of the lenses though they look tiny. So if the IQ is better then they will sell like hotcakes as travel lenses


----------



## Joules (Jul 6, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> It is more that it has a 200mm Fl advantage over the 150-600offerings so that gives it a small factor of difference that the 600 wont have. having now seen the images of the lenses though they look tiny. So if the IQ is better then they will sell like hotcakes as travel lenses


True. I may be completely wrong of course. But if a slow first party prime had been available at the time I bought my 150-600 mm C, I would have had a very hard time justifying paying significantly more for such a lens.

Maybe the size and weight savings are worth asking a higher price. But in that case I still am confused by the STM. So looking forward to the end of the week for more info.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> True. I may be completely wrong of course. But if a slow first party prime had been available at the time I bought my 150-600 mm C, I would have had a very hard time justifying paying significantly more for such a lens.
> 
> Maybe the size and weight savings are worth asking a higher price. But in that case I still am confused by the STM. So looking forward to the end of the week for more info.


Agree. The price will be the clincher. It MUST be affordable. at the most no more than the third party offerings


----------



## padam (Jul 6, 2020)

*Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM Lens:*

10 elements in 7 groups (including DO lens)
Minimum shooting distance 4.5 m
Maximum shooting magnification 0.14x
Camera shake correction effect 5.0 steps
Filter diameter 82 mm
Size φ 93 x 199.5 mm (when retracted)/269.5mm (when shooting)
Weight 930g
*Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM Lens:*

11 elements in 8 groups (including DO lens)
Minimum shooting distance 6.0m
Maximum shooting magnification 0.14x
Camera shake correction effect 4.0 steps
Filter diameter 95mm
Size φ 101.6 × 281.8mm (when retracted)/351.8mm (when shooting)
Weight 1260g


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

padam said:


> View attachment 191144
> View attachment 191145
> 
> [..]


I don't care about the lenses, where I can I buy hair like that!?!?!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

padam said:


> View attachment 191144
> View attachment 191145
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the heads up. The 600 is a nice size and weight. I calculate that it will have a similar effective resolution to a 500mm f/5.6 on a 50 Mpx FF sensor, and the 800mm about 700mm. If I go for an R5, I will go also for the 100-500mm as the zoom capabilities, mfd and fov will be so much more useful for me than the increase in resolution, and I can use a 1.4xTC.


----------



## Joules (Jul 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Thanks for the heads up. The 600 is a nice size and weight. I calculate that it will have a similar effective resolution to a 500mm f/5.6 on a 50 Mpx FF sensor


May I ask you to share how you arrived at that number?

I would think a 500 mm f/5.6 out resolves a 600 mm f/11. On a 50 MP sensor, doesn't diffraction limit the 600 mm f/11 to effectively 24 MP? By the time you crop the 50 MP image from a 500 f/5.6 to 24 MP, you get a FoV equivalent to ~ 720 mm (500÷√(24÷50)) if I'm not mistaken.

If I am missing something, I would appreciate it if you could point it out.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> May I ask you to share how you arrived at that number?
> 
> I would think a 500 mm f/5.6 out resolves a 600 mm f/11. On a 50 MP sensor, doesn't diffraction limit the 600 mm f/11 to effectively 24 MP? By the time you crop the 50 MP image from a 500 f/5.6 to 24 MP, you get a FoV equivalent to ~ 720 mm (500÷√(24÷50)) if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> If I am missing something, I would appreciate it if you could point it out.



System resolution is determined by a combination of the MTFs of the lens and the sensor (plus complicating factors like from the Baeyer grid) and there is not a sharp diffraction cut-off. f/5.6 to f/11 is in a transition region where both MTFs affect the overall resolution. At much greater f-numbers where diffraction is purely limiting, you can easily calculate resolution from the diameter of the entrance pupil, but it is difficult in this f-number region with current sensors. So, I analysed experimental measurements. In one of my geekier moments, I plotted the MTF50 measurements by ePhotozine and lenstip of the best lenses where there are not aberrations on the 5DSR against f-number. On going from f/5.6 to f/11, the consensus best MTF50 values dropped by 12 or18%, depending on who measured them, say an average of ~15%. So the resolution of a 600mm f/11 would be the equivalent of ~0.85 x600mm for an f/5.6 lens, ie ~ 510mm on an f/5.6.

The usual wiseguys will jump in and point out that resolution is determined by MTF10 or MTF20 and not MTF50, but changes in MTF10 and 20 parallel changes in MTF50 (as measured by optyczne, the parent site of lenstip).


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> I'm not sure if just having the focal length advantage will translate to a real world advantage for the 800 f/11. It does have only a 72 mm aperture, vs 95 mm on the 150-600 mm third party options. So with a high MP sensor and a good copy, they could still outperform it.
> 
> But those lenses will be much lighter. And I am still betting that they will be just marginally more expensive than the third party zooms.




I'm reading the 800 f/11 will have a 95mm front element. No idea why -- it surely doesn't need to be that large.

- A


----------



## Joules (Jul 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'm reading the 800 f/11 will have a 95mm front element. No idea why -- it surely doesn't need to be that large.
> 
> - A


Read that too. Though I think that is the filter size, not necessarily the from element? Maybe the DO construction requires some extra.


----------

