# The Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM were inspired by lenses from the 1960’s



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 5, 2020)

> Two of the strangest and surprising products Canon announced this year were the Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM super-telephoto lenses. There really isn’t any other lenses like these on the market, and reviewers have been pleasantly surprised by how useable these lenses are.
> DC Watch had the chance to interview the Canon engineers responsible for these lens designs, and it’s kind of cool where the idea for them came from.
> 
> 
> Top to bottom: The Canon R 600mm f/5.6, Canon R 800mm f/8 and Canon R 1000mm f/11 lenses...



Continue reading...


----------



## cayenne (Oct 5, 2020)

Are these F/11 lenses useful for anything other than bright daylight shooting?

cayenne


----------



## Joules (Oct 5, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Are these F/11 lenses useful for anything other than bright daylight shooting?
> 
> cayenne


They can be used in all situations a Sigma 150-600 mm 5.0-6.3 can be used on an APS-C body, or cropping an EF 100-400 mm L IS II on a FF body to 50% horizontal and vertical size yields acceptable results. From experience with the former, that is a lot of situations, although of course good light conditions are preferable.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 5, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Are these F/11 lenses useful for anything other than bright daylight shooting?
> 
> cayenne



Yes. Cameras like the R5 and R6 can be used at ISO 12800 or 25600 with very good results and still print big. I would say these lenses are good for situations when there is decent light, not necessarily sunny.


----------



## degos (Oct 5, 2020)

Joules said:


> They can be used in all situations a Sigma 150-600 mm 5.0-6.3 can be used on an APS-C body,



Err no, the flux reaching the sensor pixel through a 600mm f/6.3 doesn't care one jot about 'crop' or not.

You can't carve-out some imaginary central light-tube and say "aha! It's f/11 now". That's not how exposure works. Otherwise the very central 1% portion of a full-frame image could be said to be f/352 or something daft.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 5, 2020)

These lenses are great as small/affordable options. But if these are going to be the only affordable options for the RF mount, that's not good.


----------



## amorse (Oct 5, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Are these F/11 lenses useful for anything other than bright daylight shooting?
> 
> cayenne


That depends on what you're taking pictures of I guess? If shutter speed and shallow depth of field isn't limiting to what you're trying to capture, then these can likely play a pretty useful role. I keep coming back to the ultra-long distance shots of people against things like the sun or the moon. Petapixel did an article on these sorts of shots at 800mm for context. I'll admit - I was curious to try landscapes at 800mm too.

Also the massive weight/size/price reduction has value if you can get past its limitations - obviously not everyone can. I mean, at 1260g and small enough to go in a carry on, the 800mm f/11 is pretty easy to add to a bag as an after thought. On the other hand, the 800 f/5.6 is 4500g and requires some forethought and planning to bring to distant locations. 

I probably wouldn't suggest either the 600 or 800 f/11s will do the same job as their f/4 or f/5.6 counterparts, but for someone going on a family holiday to somewhere exotic, adding an 800mm f/11 means being able to get some neat pictures of wildlife in bright light without planning the trip around it.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 5, 2020)

I'm using the 2xTC on the 100-400mm II at f/11 with the R5 and finding it quite useful. From this morning - a dull day with a break in the rain and chancing across a Migrant Hawker Dragonfly. The 2xTC on the 100-400mm II + R5, f/11, 1/160s iso 1000.


----------



## Joules (Oct 5, 2020)

degos said:


> Err no, the flux reaching the sensor pixel through a 600mm f/6.3 doesn't care one jot about 'crop' or not.
> 
> You can't carve-out some imaginary central light-tube and say "aha! It's f/11 now". That's not how exposure works. Otherwise the very central 1% portion of a full-frame image could be said to be f/352 or something daft.


The question was about usability. It was probably raised due to concerns about the limitations an f/11 lens has in terms of light gathering. So I'm talking about equivalency in terms of the amount of light gathered:

The f number just gives you the light per area. So you have to consider the area that your image is based of if you are interested in the total light captured. Which is what you should be interested in, as it determines signal to noise ratio and therefore how noticable noise is in the image. A Canon APS-C sensor has about 39 % the area of an FF one. And f/11 is about 33 % the amount of light per area compared to f/6.3. So you get comparable levels of total light gathered when comparing f/11 on FF (uncropped) to f/6.3 on an 1.6 crop sensor.

Similarly, cropping the FF image from a 400 mm 5.6 lens to match the FoV of an 800 mm lens reduces the image area to 25 % of the original image. f/11 is 25 % the light per area of f/5.6. If you want to think about it in terms of physical aperture, like it is the norm for astro photography purposes, both have very similar apertures: 400/5.6 = 71.4 ~ 72.3 = 800/11


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 5, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Are these F/11 lenses useful for anything other than bright daylight shooting?
> 
> cayenne


I think these are mainly statement lenses - 'look at what our mirrorless system allows us to do - AF at f/22! Small compact super telephotos"! 

But yes they have an audience and a use. Look at some of the reviews on YouTube. A lot of people who were skeptical at the announcement seemed to find themselves surprised by the size and weight, and affordability of that kind of reach. That said, serious event photographers are probably not looking at this as an alternative to their big whites! My take away has been that they feel its neat and attractive for a lot of reasons, but not for professional use. And that is how it is built and priced so I think Canon agrees. 

I want one to take to the zoo. I know some folks want one for air shows. A lot of types of bird or wildlife photography is possible in daylight conditions with this, down to maybe twilight at higher ISO. Heck, even some shots of the far side of the field at my daughter's soccer game would be cool. 

My EF glass has me covered for the most part. But honestly either of these are near the top of my list for when i switch to the RF system.

-Brian


----------



## Joules (Oct 5, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I think these are mainly statement lenses [...] My take away has been that they feel its neat and attractive for a lot of reasons, but not for professional use.


I don't think they are statement lenses at all. And of course they are not aimed at any sort of high end. They are non-L lenses with flippin STM AF. With higher end APS-C going the way of the Dodo apparently, Canon still needs affordable options that provide reach. These lenses are a good solution for that. The RF 28-70 mm is a statement lens. These are just the beginning of Canon's lineup of affordable RF lenses. And they are the first cheap DO lenses, possibly experimenting with a newer version of the technology that they are more comfortable rolling out in this price category. Like they often do, with tilty-flippy screens, touchscreens, DPAF, nano-USM, mirrorless in general. It will provide value to the high end in the long term as well to have a healthy set of options for low and mid range market segments.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 5, 2020)

Joules said:


> I don't think they are statement lenses at all. And of course they are not aimed at any sort of high end. They are non-L lenses with flippin STM AF. With higher end APS-C going the way of the Dodo apparently, Canon still needs affordable options that provide reach. These lenses are a good solution for that. The RF 28-70 mm is a statement lens. These are just the beginning of Canon's lineup of affordable RF lenses. And they are the first cheap DO lenses, possibly experimenting with a newer version of the technology that they are more comfortable rolling out in this price category. Like they often do, with tilty-flippy screens, touchscreens, DPAF, nano-USM, mirrorless in general. It will provide value to the high end in the long term as well to have a healthy set of options for low and mid range market segments.



They're both statements, just on opposite ends of the capability spectrum. the f/2 series is about how far they can take it on the cutting edge, and the f/11s are about how much capability they can provide on the cheaper end. A lens like the 600 or 800 would have been close to useless because of lack of AF on the EF mount, and is possible now only because of the RF/mirrorless technology. That's why, to me at least, they are a 'statement'. 

-Brian


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 5, 2020)

When’s the 1000mm coming out?


----------



## magarity (Oct 5, 2020)

CanonGrunt said:


> When’s the 1000mm coming out?


The interview specifically calls out that there will not be a 1000 because the 600 and 800 are designed to work with the extenders to get that length and more.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 5, 2020)

amorse said:


> That depends on what you're taking pictures of I guess? If shutter speed and shallow depth of field isn't limiting to what you're trying to capture, then these can likely play a pretty useful role. I keep coming back to the ultra-long distance shots of people against things like the sun or the moon. Petapixel did an article on these sorts of shots at 800mm for context. I'll admit - I was curious to try landscapes at 800mm too.
> 
> Also the massive weight/size/price reduction has value if you can get past its limitations - obviously not everyone can. I mean, at 1260g and small enough to go in a carry on, the 800mm f/11 is pretty easy to add to a bag as an after thought. On the other hand, the 800 f/5.6 is 4500g and requires some forethought and planning to bring to distant locations.
> 
> I probably wouldn't suggest either the 600 or 800 f/11s will do the same job as their f/4 or f/5.6 counterparts, but for someone going on a family holiday to somewhere exotic, adding an 800mm f/11 means being able to get some neat pictures of wildlife in bright light without planning the trip around it.



Well, I was thinking of shooting concerts or festivals, indoors or after sunset.....?

cayenne


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 5, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Are these F/11 lenses useful for anything other than bright daylight shooting?
> 
> cayenne




Moon pictures.


----------



## lexptr (Oct 5, 2020)

So they inspired by the 600mm f/5.6 and gave us 600 f/11? Something went wrong between the inspiration and the actual product... :-D


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 5, 2020)

Did anyone else notice that the article (translated) suggested that DO technology will be subsumed into the existing L and non-L nomenclature?


----------



## Rzrsharp (Oct 6, 2020)

I would like to say Canon is tickled by Laowa


----------



## mdmphoto (Oct 6, 2020)

I am thrilled with the RF800 lens performance shooting surfers from shore in light just before sunset using the EOS R; which handles higher ISO noise a lot better than my 7D MkII, or my former 5Ds!


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Well, I was thinking of shooting concerts or festivals, indoors or after sunset.....?
> 
> cayenne


Are you being serious?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 6, 2020)

lol...."Super-Telephoto" isn't a scientific optical term...it's a made up hyperbole. A telephoto lens in one that has a focal length longer than it's physical length. This measurement means that it's very dependant of the type of camera. Medium format SLR cameras have shorter lenses...so more lenses are classed as telephoto. On 35mm SLR, weird lenses like the 24mm pancake can actually classed as telephoto. The ef 50mm f1.8 is telephoto where as the ef 50mm f1.2L isn't. Due to the RF's shorter distance between the mount and sensor, less lenses are classed as telephoto because the lenses generally require a design that occupies the mirror box space. An ef 300mm f2.8 would be physically shorter (for the same optical formula) than an Rf counterpart. 
In the venacular we have labelled wide lenses and standard lenses...and then we added the term "telephoto or tele" to mean long. However...that's NOT what the definition actually means. The concept of super-telephoto is just even more weird...it's just a made up nonsense. 
My definitions of the lenses in my lens bag are ultra wide, standard and long. I also have a wildlife lens...which is long, big, heavy, f2.8 and very white. But it is NOT a super-tele.....ok rant over...feeling purged....


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 6, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> lol...."Super-Telephoto" isn't a scientific optical term...it's a made up hyperbole.



Language is not a thing set in stone. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that "telephoto" has come to mean "long focal length" in common usage, and "super telephoto" is commonly accepted to mean focal lengths >=400mm or so. Everyday use is distinct from rigorous scientific usage.

And a 24mm DSLR lens cannot be a telephoto lens because "lens length" in formal terms includes the flange distance. Indeed, any <~40mm DLSR lens must be _reverse telephoto_ to account for the flange distance.


----------



## mdmphoto (Oct 6, 2020)

I like that the AF is fast and accurate, and I particularly like being able to handhold this lens; I couldn't get this shot with my Tamron 150-600 G2:
ISO 6400, 1/1600:


...maybe this one, - just maybe, at ISO 3200, 1/1600:


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

mdmphoto said:


> I like that the AF is fast and accurate, and I particularly like being able to handhold this lens; I couldn't get this shot with my Tamron 150-600 G2:
> ISO 6400, 1/1600:
> View attachment 193137
> 
> ...


Nice shots. On the first one, I'd advice to keep the distortion corrections turned off, as it shows a really unnatural pattern in the noise of the background.


----------



## BirdDudeJosh (Oct 6, 2020)

I have both the RF 600 and 800 on the R5 and they work great in the right situation. I have mostly only used the RF 800. The AF and tracking works really well even though you are limited to the middle of the sensor for AF area. 
In certain situations without enough background separation the bokeh can be distracting and unpleasant as expected with an f11. 
I have the fairly expensive 400mm DO II that I often use with the 2x TC III and feel like the sharpness between it and the RF 800 are very similar and can't declare either one the winner yet. The RF 800 tracks better than the 400 DO II with the 2x TC and my only complaint would be the bokeh at times. I fell like the RF 800mm might even have faster AF and tracks better than the bare 400mm DO II. The RF 800 has better IS in images as well as better stability in the view finder.
I love the 400mm f4 DO IS II and loved the version one before that. The DO II is not on the list for lenses that get the full 12/20FPS which I would agree it doesn't achieve or can't keep up at 12 FPS. The RF 800 is really good and seems to be able to take full advantage of the R5. I really need to get the the RF 100-500 so I can really compare it to my A9 and FE 200-600 side by side. The R5 no doubt smokes my a7RIV for speed, AF, tracking and ISO performance.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 7, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Language is not a thing set in stone.


No but Science is. Telephoto is a definition, not a phrase. You can call your lenses anything you like...but scientifically, a telephoto lens is a lens whose focal length is longer than it's actual length.


----------



## Rivermist (Oct 7, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> lol...."Super-Telephoto" isn't a scientific optical term...it's a made up hyperbole. A telephoto lens in one that has a focal length longer than it's physical length. This measurement means that it's very dependant of the type of camera. Medium format SLR cameras have shorter lenses...so more lenses are classed as telephoto. On 35mm SLR, weird lenses like the 24mm pancake can actually classed as telephoto. The ef 50mm f1.8 is telephoto where as the ef 50mm f1.2L isn't. Due to the RF's shorter distance between the mount and sensor, less lenses are classed as telephoto because the lenses generally require a design that occupies the mirror box space. An ef 300mm f2.8 would be physically shorter (for the same optical formula) than an Rf counterpart.
> In the venacular we have labelled wide lenses and standard lenses...and then we added the term "telephoto or tele" to mean long. However...that's NOT what the definition actually means. The concept of super-telephoto is just even more weird...it's just a made up nonsense.
> My definitions of the lenses in my lens bag are ultra wide, standard and long. I also have a wildlife lens...which is long, big, heavy, f2.8 and very white. But it is NOT a super-tele.....ok rant over...feeling purged....


Not sure I follow your drift here. A lens is labelled standard if the focal length is in the ball park of the measurement of the diagonal of the film or sensor it is covering. For full-frame (24x36mm) this is 43mm, and 50mm is generally considered to be in the "close to" = standard. For your 645 film, it is 75mm, for 6x6 film, 85mm, etc.. Wide is, well, anything wider than standard, e.g. 35mm in full-frame, telephoto is anything longer, e.g. 60mm or 70mm in full-frame, etc..


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2020)

BirdDudeJosh said:


> I have both the RF 600 and 800 on the R5 and they work great in the right situation. I have mostly only used the RF 800. The AF and tracking works really well even though you are limited to the middle of the sensor for AF area.
> In certain situations without enough background separation the bokeh can be distracting and unpleasant as expected with an f11.
> I have the fairly expensive 400mm DO II that I often use with the 2x TC III and feel like the sharpness between it and the RF 800 are very similar and can't declare either one the winner yet. The RF 800 tracks better than the 400 DO II with the 2x TC and my only complaint would be the bokeh at times. I fell like the RF 800mm might even have faster AF and tracks better than the bare 400mm DO II. The RF 800 has better IS in images as well as better stability in the view finder.
> I love the 400mm f4 DO IS II and loved the version one before that. The DO II is not on the list for lenses that get the full 12/20FPS which I would agree it doesn't achieve or can't keep up at 12 FPS. The RF 800 is really good and seems to be able to take full advantage of the R5. I really need to get the the RF 100-500 so I can really compare it to my A9 and FE 200-600 side by side. The R5 no doubt smokes my a7RIV for speed, AF, tracking and ISO performance.


Thanks for that - you have laid to rest any regrets I might have had on selling my 400mm DO II.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> No but Science is. Telephoto is a definition, not a phrase. You can call your lenses anything you like...but scientifically, a telephoto lens is a lens whose focal length is longer than it's actual length.


Science is not set in stone but evolves with increasing knowledge. Newtonian physics seemed pretty absolute until Einstein and others came along, for example.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 7, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Science is not set in stone but evolves with increasing knowledge. Newtonian physics seemed pretty absolute until Einstein and others came along, for example.



So what could have changed in the last few decades to alter the definition of "telephoto"?


----------



## Joules (Oct 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> So what could have changed in the last few decades to alter the definition of "telephoto"?


For the more recent decades, the rise of online forums that gave more people access to technical discussions and arm-chair engineering come to mind. Those surely have had a decent influence on vocabulary. The fan favorite 'cripple hammer' is something that I can't imagine having existed prior to forums, right? Also, calling the combination of in camera memory and card write speed buffer depth, for example, seems like a vaguely defined term that comes more from the need of people to discuss a concept rather than an actual product sheet. 

It is not unusual to have a single term be useful in different contexts. I don't think it is common to have people object to using the term 'gas' to describe the fuel used in cars. Although technically speaking, that is using a scientific term for an general state of matter for a specific liquid. In the context of lens design, tele-photo should probably be used with more care. But on an internet forum, it is not the formal definition that is usually meant.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> So what could have changed in the last few decades to alter the definition of "telephoto"?


I am not concerned with the definition of telephoto, only the inferred statement that "Science is set in stone", because it isn't. I thought my comment with the illustrative example was clear. However, I do agree that the definition of a "telephoto" lens being one whose physical length is shorter than than its focal length is the classical one. But, that is not science, it's terminology.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 8, 2020)

Joules said:


> It is not unusual to have a single term be useful in different contexts. I don't think it is common to have people object to using the term 'gas' to describe the fuel used in cars. Although technically speaking, that is using a scientific term for an general state of matter for a specific liquid. In the context of lens design, tele-photo should probably be used with more care. But on an internet forum, it is not the formal definition that is usually meant.



"Gas" is of course ridiculous as a name for a liquid automobile fuel, but it did come about as an abbreviation for "gasoline."


----------



## analoggrotto (Oct 8, 2020)

wide angle 

narrow angle?


----------



## Joules (Oct 8, 2020)

SteveC said:


> "Gas" is of course ridiculous as a name for a liquid automobile fuel, but it did come about as an abbreviation for "gasoline."


It was just a good example that came to my mind to illustrate the point. Of course it is understandable why the term is used.

But similarly, with television meaning something like vision over a distance and telecommunications meaning something like communicating over a distance, I really don't see any issue in the fact that Tele-photo has become a term used to mean something that allows photographing things in the distance, despite having a scientific definition that sais something else.


----------



## Ahmed Hindawi (Oct 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> These lenses are great as small/affordable options. But if these are going to be the only affordable options for the RF mount, that's not good.



They already have RF 35mm f/1.8 which is very affordable. But I agree they need more affordable glass for the entire prime and zoom ranges. Especially with the RP being such an affordable body, you need glass to go with that.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 10, 2020)

Ahmed Hindawi said:


> They already have RF 35mm f/1.8 which is very affordable. But I agree they need more affordable glass for the entire prime and zoom ranges. Especially with the RP being such an affordable body, you need glass to go with that.



I was specifically talking about the 600mm and 800mm F11 primes. The gap is too big between the $700 600mm F11 and $3000 100-500. 
And the 100-400 F7.1 on the roadmap is just too short and dark.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I was specifically talking about the 600mm and 800mm F11 primes. The gap is too big between the $700 600mm F11 and $3000 100-500.
> And the 100-400 F7.1 on the roadmap is just too short and dark.


There will be more affordable lenses but not likely in the 600-1200 mm range, that's pretty specialized. The price seems to go up exponentially as the aperture becomes larger, those lenses might exceed $2.5k if they were f/8.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 10, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There will be more affordable lenses but not likely in the 600-1200 mm range, that's pretty specialized. The price seems to go up exponentially as the aperture becomes larger, those lenses might exceed $2.5k if they were f/8.



I am thinking about lenses like 200-600, 500 5.6 or 600 5.6.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> It was just a good example that came to my mind to illustrate the point. Of course it is understandable why the term is used.
> 
> But similarly, with television meaning something like vision over a distance and telecommunications meaning something like communicating over a distance, I really don't see any issue in the fact that Tele-photo has become a term used to mean something that allows photographing things in the distance, despite having a scientific definition that sais something else.


It's becoming rather teleological.


----------



## mdmphoto (Oct 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> Nice shots. On the first one, I'd advice to keep the distortion corrections turned off, as it shows a really unnatural pattern in the noise of the background.


Thanks for your response and suggestion: I suspect the finished product has more to do with my image-processing shortcomings. Certain ISOs, in particular, seem to challenge my abilities more than other, - even higher, ones, one way or another, but I will continue to research, practice, and endeavor to persevere....


----------



## AlanF (Oct 11, 2020)

Joules said:


> It was just a good example that came to my mind to illustrate the point. Of course it is understandable why the term is used.
> 
> But similarly, with television meaning something like vision over a distance and telecommunications meaning something like communicating over a distance, I really don't see any issue in the fact that Tele-photo has become a term used to mean something that allows photographing things in the distance, despite having a scientific definition that sais something else.


I agree with you. The technical definition of a telephoto lens is one whose physical length is shorter than its optical length. But, the intuitive meaning based on our common experience with language is a lens that is used to see far off objects or at a distance - the classical Greek "tele" means "far off", or "at a distance". Languages evolve to become simplified so the largest number understand words. I hate jargon and far prefer words or phrases that clearly describe matters.


----------

