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



## canonnews (Feb 14, 2022)

> Digicame-Info who aggregates rumors and information and typically has reliable information has mentioned today that the RF 800mm and RF 1200mm have been added to overseas dealers lists recently.  This usually means that the lenses are very close to becoming available.
> These lenses have been on our roadmap for quite some time.
> 
> According to Digicame-info;
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2022)

Tempting...


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 14, 2022)

Speculation on pricing? I'm guessing maybe 15k in USD for the 800, and more than that for the 1200. They'll have similar element sizes, and similar to the 600 f4 as well, but its not about the cost of the glass. Maybe Canon wants a $20k lens and one of these is it....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2022)

lnz said:


> 1200mm f8 will be cheaper than the 800 since it will be a catadioptric lense.


Link? Can a catadioptric lens even have image stabilization? I'm not aware of any examples. Canon patented a 400/5.6 catadioptric lens a few years ago, but it didn't have IS.


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Link? Can a catadioptric lens even have image stabilization? I'm not aware of any examples. Canon patented a 400/5.6 catadioptric lens a few years ago, but it didn't have IS.


I don't think so. I think most IS systems don't move the front element, and in a catadioptic system if the rear spherical mirror doesn't stay properly aligned with the front convex mirror (and by relationship with the front glass element) then major distortions happen. I suppose they could have a system that moves it all together. They know more about optics than we do afterall, but we haven't seen an example yet. 


Brian


----------



## entoman (Feb 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Link? Can a catadioptric lens even have image stabilization? I'm not aware of any examples. Canon patented a 400/5.6 catadioptric lens a few years ago, but it didn't have IS.


I'd be absolutely amazed if it was a catadioptric lens - the "donut" look has never been popular and I can't see many people spending thousands on such an optic. Perhaps "Inz", whose post has for some reason been deleted, meant to say "fresnel" instead of "catadioptric"?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 14, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'd be absolutely amazed if it was a catadioptric lens - the "donut" look has never been popular and I can't see many people spending thousands on such an optic. Perhaps "Inz", whose post has for some reason been deleted, meant to say "fresnel" instead of "catadioptric"?



A patent doesn't prove anything, but it looks like it is possible it will be:









Patent: Is Canon planning to release catadioptric (mirror) super telephoto lenses?


Keith over at Northlight uncovered a USPTO patent showing various optical designs for catadioptric lenses, better known as mirror lenses. The advantages to mirr



www.canonrumors.com





And it actually looks like they have IS:









Canon RF & EF Lenses - rumours & news


Rumours and news about lenses. Canon EF and RF lenses. Third party lenses, design information and patents. Lens testing and usage tips




www.northlight-images.co.uk


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 14, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> A patent doesn't prove anything, but it looks like it is possible it will be:



Considering the size, weight and price of a "conventional" 1200mm F8 lens, it makes absolute sense to me if Canon made it as a mirror lens instead.


----------



## entoman (Feb 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tempting...


Genuine question: Would you still find it tempting, if it turned out to be a catadioptric lens, with accompanying donut bokeh?


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 14, 2022)

An excellent catadioptric lens isn't necessarily small and lightweight. Who remembers the Carl Zeiss Mirotars 4,5/500 and 5,6/1000?
And they were definitely not inexpensive. I'd be surprised if Canon were ready to compromise on quality.
As a non-L lens, it would cost far less , of course. But who could handle such a lens, if not an experienced photographer, with the right (heavy) tripod?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2022)

entoman said:


> Genuine question: Would you still find it tempting, if it turned out to be a catadioptric lens, with accompanying donut bokeh?


No, I wouldn't. The bokeh of my current 1200/8 lens (EF 600/4 II + 2xIII) isn't perfect, but it's better than that.


----------



## mxwphoto (Feb 14, 2022)

I also doubt canon would do a CAT 1200mm f8, donut backgrounds in bird photos are just no good. A close facsimile would be the Pentax 1200mm f8. 684mm long and nearly 8580g in weight. If we assume that as base and Canon does incorporate DO element in it length would likely shrink to around 500mm and weight 5500g, which would still be big, but be manageable for a 1200mm. It certainly also would not command the $100k+ pricetag the f5.6 does.


----------



## mpmark (Feb 14, 2022)

Waiting on this “super light weight” 500mm F4 I’ve been hearing about.


----------



## mpmark (Feb 14, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> I also doubt canon would do a CAT 1200mm f8, donut backgrounds in bird photos are just no good. A close facsimile would be the Pentax 1200mm f8. 684mm long and nearly 8580g in weight. If we assume that as base and Canon does incorporate DO element in it length would likely shrink to around 500mm and weight 5500g, which would still be big, but be manageable for a 1200mm. It certainly also would not command the $100k+ pricetag the f5.6 does.


You’re just throwing so many hypotheticals out there


----------



## canonnews (Feb 14, 2022)

We actually had this discussion internally. Cats are hard, they are also hard to keep their alignment perfect as well. Especially one with a 150mm f1200 cat optic. They also have a bear of a time as far as temperature control. Also if it was a Cat - I REALLY doubt it would be an L lens, as I'm not even sure you could fully weather seal a Cat. 

As far as AF and IS, sure - because you have to have field correctors, and focusing elements on the back end of the Cat, and there you'd have your floating IS unit and AF motors, etc. Just like with a telescope you have your eyepiece coming out of the back of the Cat.

I really doubt it's a cat, I suspect it will be DO and be around the same size as the 800mm .. if you think about it, the 800mm F5.6 and the 1200mm F.8 will have roughly the same size as the front element. With DO, it would be smaller and around the same length as the 800mm.

That's my theory.


----------



## juststeve (Feb 14, 2022)

The patents listed include 1200 mm cat lenses 275 and 300 mm long, and include IS.


----------



## rbr (Feb 14, 2022)

After Nikon's announcement of their 800 f6.3, a heavier and more expensive RF 800 f5.6 is going to be a hard sell for Canon.


----------



## Billybob (Feb 14, 2022)

rbr said:


> After Nikon's announcement of their 800 f6.3, a heavier and more expensive RF 800 f5.6 is going to be a hard sell for Canon.


Let's wait to see if the Nikon's IQ is on par with other 800mm lenses. If so, and Nikon is able to see it for <$10k, that lens will sell a lot of Nikon cameras.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 14, 2022)

There does appear from the last couple of posts that there is excitement about 800/6.3. However, 800mm is too specialised for me, in terms of both field of view and probably minimum focal distance. I'd prefer a 500/4, which has a similar size front element, with the versatility of 700mm and 1000mm with TCs. It will be interesting to see how well the 800/6.3 sells.


----------



## john1970 (Feb 14, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Waiting on this “super light weight” 500mm F4 I’ve been hearing about.


 I am also waiting on the 500 mm f4. I have little interest in a 800 mm or 1200 mm.


----------



## becceric (Feb 14, 2022)

entoman said:


> Genuine question: Would you still find it tempting, if it turned out to be a catadioptric lens, with accompanying donut bokeh?


I sure wouldn’t want the donut bokeh.
If I remember correctly, it would be only one aperture also. No way to change dof.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 14, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I am also waiting on the 500 mm f4. I have little interest in a 800 mm or 1200 mm.


I own an EF 300 f/2.8 that is used with 1.4X and 2X TCs. The only other big white prime that interests me is a 400 f/2.8. But how about a 200-500 f/4 zoom instead or, better yet, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 that holds f/2.8 all the way to 350mm?


----------



## snapshot (Feb 15, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I own an EF 300 f/2.8 that is used with 1.4X and 2X TCs. The only other big white prime that interests me is a 400 f/2.8. But how about a 200-500 f/4 zoom instead or, better yet, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 that holds f/2.8 all the way to 350mm?


all in on the 100-400 f/2.8 with built in 1.4x and 2x TC.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 15, 2022)

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


----------



## PhilA (Feb 15, 2022)

Just for a bit of historic reference:

www.philaphoto.com/images/Canon-teles


----------



## dolina (Feb 15, 2022)

What makes this rumored 800/5.6 & 1200/5.6 replacements not clickbait? Every year or so a rumored refresh is posted here just for fun.

With production delays caused by COVID there are dozens of other EF lenses that need an RF update and these two would be the last they'd prioritize.

Earliest I see either being shipped to retailers would be year 2025 or later


----------



## kaihp (Feb 15, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I own an EF 300 f/2.8 that is used with 1.4X and 2X TCs. The only other big white prime that interests me is a 400 f/2.8. But how about a 200-500 f/4 zoom instead or, better yet, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 that holds f/2.8 all the way to 350mm?


I have an EF 300/2.8 II, but after picking up a slightly used 200-400/4 ext, the 300/2.8 isn't getting much use. The zooming is just so versatile.


----------



## haripan (Feb 15, 2022)

I'm sorry, but English can't be written, so I think to depend on automatic translation, it's incomprehensible.
NOKISHITA seems to have written this source origin in Japanese bulletin board 5ch.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Feb 15, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Considering the size, weight and price of a "conventional" 1200mm F8 lens, it makes absolute sense to me if Canon made it as a mirror lens instead.


I have a copy of the $300 1200mm f10 russian cat lens. Weighs alot, has the diameter of a volley ball. f8 hmmm. It wasnt a total wast of $300 but close. 

Makes a good soft portrait lens at 50 yards


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2022)

becceric said:


> If I remember correctly, it would be only one aperture also. No way to change dof.


The RF 600 and 800 f/11s appear to be selling well despite being fixed aperture. The dof isn't usually a problem with the distances used for these long telephotos.


----------



## entoman (Feb 15, 2022)

rbr said:


> After Nikon's announcement of their 800 f6.3, a heavier and more expensive RF 800 f5.6 is going to be a hard sell for Canon.


Personally, what I'd like to see from Canon is some "compromise" lenses.

e.g. we have a choice between the low budget fixed aperture RF 600mm F11 optic for £859, or the RF 600mm F4L for £13,409. Nothing in between.

I think there would be a lot of demand among birders for a more affordable RF 600mm F5.6, now that sensors are good enough to cope with higher ISO settings.


----------



## Tom Raymond (Feb 15, 2022)

If these monster lenses are in development, prototypes should be in use at the winter olympics right now.


----------



## tron (Feb 15, 2022)

An RF 800mm f/8 DO could be tempting. These monsters cannot tempt me. But then they are made for professionals and I am not one.

Back to reality:

Canon's EF 800 f5.6L IS weighs 4.5Kg I think.

If they could make the RF version say 3.5Kg it would be a serious selling point.

This is not unreasonable. 600mm f/4L IS II weighs 3.9Kg and 600mm f/4L IS III 3.09Kg.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Feb 15, 2022)

800 F5.6....I *JUST *told my wife that I was done with big spending on lenses for life, now that I purchased the last couple from my wish-list.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> 800 F5.6....I *JUST *told my wife that I was done with big spending on lenses for life, now that I purchased the last couple from my wish-list.


Well, that was foolish.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2022)

entoman said:


> Personally, what I'd like to see from Canon is some "compromise" lenses.
> 
> e.g. we have a choice between the low budget fixed aperture RF 600mm F11 optic for £859, or the RF 600mm F4L for £13,409. Nothing in between.
> 
> I think there would be a lot of demand among birders for a more affordable RF 600mm F5.6, now that sensors are good enough to cope with higher ISO settings.


I used to have a 600 f/5.6 - an EF 300mm f/2.8 II with a 2xTC. I'd be surprised if they couldn't make a RF 600/5.6 weighing 2kg or less, and it should be lighter than an RF 500 f/4.


----------



## jpavan (Feb 15, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> Speculation on pricing? I'm guessing maybe 15k in USD for the 800, and more than that for the 1200. They'll have similar element sizes, and similar to the 600 f4 as well, but its not about the cost of the glass. Maybe Canon wants a $20k lens and one of these is it....


I'd guess that the cost of the 800 F/5.6 is the same price as the 400 f/2.8 (basically the same glass). The 1200mm F/8 is more of a wildcard. If it's basically a 600mm F/4 with a teleconverter strapped on it should cost about the same as the 600mm F/4. However, there have been persistent rumors that it will be catadioptric. In which case it should be a _lot_ cheaper, and not a direct competitor to the 600 F/4.


----------



## Swurre (Feb 15, 2022)

Very interesting, will never be able to afford them but you can dream...


----------



## tron (Feb 15, 2022)

jpavan said:


> I'd guess that the cost of the 800 F/5.6 is the same price as the 400 f/2.8 (basically the same glass). The 1200mm F/8 is more of a wildcard. If it's basically a 600mm F/4 with a teleconverter strapped on it should cost about the same as the 600mm F/4. However, there have been persistent rumors that it will be catadioptric. In which case it should be a _lot_ cheaper, and not a direct competitor to the 600 F/4.


I am pretty sure that the construction of a 800 5.6 is not the same with a 400 2.8 and TC etc....

Otherwise its length would be much much shorter.... One can also look at Canon drawings regarding the elements of the lenses...


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> There does appear from the last couple of posts that there is excitement about 800/6.3. However, 800mm is too specialised for me, in terms of both field of view and probably minimum focal distance. I'd prefer a 500/4, which has a similar size front element, with the versatility of 700mm and 1000mm with TCs. It will be interesting to see how well the 800/6.3 sells.


800 is also not something I'm that interested in. I prefer to shoot 600/4 or even 400/2.8 and reach to 800(840) with TCs if needed. I wouldn't spend 600/4+ money on one of these lenses.

I think these are very unlikely to be traditional optics as I really don't think there is a big market for them. They have to be DO or something else like the Cat being discussed.


----------



## dolina (Feb 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The RF 600 and 800 f/11s appear to be selling well despite being fixed aperture. The dof isn't usually a problem with the distances used for these long telephotos.


They sell well because its cheap and its physicality is friendly to those who have difficulty carrying heavy things.


----------



## entoman (Feb 15, 2022)

arbitrage said:


> 800 is also not something I'm that interested in. I prefer to shoot 600/4 or even 400/2.8 and reach to 800(840) with TCs if needed. I wouldn't spend 600/4+ money on one of these lenses.
> 
> I think these are very unlikely to be traditional optics as I really don't think there is a big market for them. They have to be DO or something else like the Cat being discussed.


I use the RF 800mm F11 and also the EF 100-400mm with 1.4x, on my R5.

For bird photography, despite the fixed F11 aperture, it's almost always the 800mm that provides the most suitable focal length, whether I'm photographing small woodland birds, waders, kingfishers or hummingbirds. The zoom comes into its own when photographing ostriches, secretary birds, vultures and eagles.

For BIF, I find the RF 800mm is OK for hovering birds like kestrels, but the narrow angle of view makes it difficult to initially locate the subject in the sky, and the F11 aperture is a bit limiting on shutter speeds, so again I use the zoom and extender in preference.

My ideal lens, which is perfectly doable, would be a twin-focal length optic, that could be used at 400mm for initial framing, and then switched instantly to 800mm by use of a lens-mounted function button. But, looking more realistically at what Canon may produce, a modestly-priced 800mm F5.6 or F6.7 would strongly appeal - I think most likely it will be a DO lens.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2022)

entoman said:


> I use the RF 800mm F11 and also the EF 100-400mm with 1.4x, on my R5.
> 
> For bird photography, despite the fixed F11 aperture, it's almost always the 800mm that provides the most suitable focal length, whether I'm photographing small woodland birds, waders, kingfishers or hummingbirds. The zoom comes into its own when photographing ostriches, secretary birds, vultures and eagles.
> 
> ...


@arbitrage is one of the very best bird photographers. He is brand agnostic and has tested in depth over several months the Sony A1, the R5 and most recently the Z9, as well as DSLRs before then - see https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/ He knows his lenses.


----------



## entoman (Feb 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> @arbitrage is one of the very best bird photographers. He is brand agnostic and has tested in depth over several months the Sony A1, the R5 and most recently the Z9, as well as DSLRs before then - see https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/ He knows his lenses.


I'm absolutely aware of that Alan. I wasn't by any means suggesting that I know better, I was just relating my own experience and preferences for focal length (which may relate more strongly to the average shooter?). I shoot mainly from fixed hides or from vehicles, and I'm far less experienced or skilled than Arbitrage, so my requirements, preferences and finances will naturally be different.


----------



## Bonich (Feb 15, 2022)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...


I am on the market for a follow up big white - with built in extender.
Without the EF version is good to be used.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'm absolutely aware of that Alan. I wasn't by any means suggesting that I know better, I was just relating my own experience and preferences for focal length (which may relate more strongly to the average shooter?). I shoot mainly from fixed hides or from vehicles, and I'm far less experienced or skilled than Arbitrage, so my requirements, preferences and finances will naturally be different.


My preferences are different from yours, and I am an average shooter. The RF 800mm f/11 is a very nice lens and super value for money. But, you need a shorter zoom with close focussing to go with it for general nature photography. The RF 100-400mm does nicely fill that gap. But, if you have the cash, the RF 100-500mm with TCs is much more versatile and gives me better results, and covers the range of the shorter zoom and long prime. I dispute your statement that the 800mm provides the most suitable focal length. I find that my 100-500mm with 2xTC at 1000mm outresolves my RF 800mm and it produces at least as good images. With the 1.4xTC, it has much snappier AF at 700mm and a much wider focus zone because that of the 800 is restricted to about 40%, and it has better IS. At 700mm, it's really quite good for fast birds in flight. For difficult BIF and DIF, the bare 100-500mm is superb, and its very high sharpness at 500mm often resolves as much detail as the 800mm. I am not running down the RF 800mm, it's a fine lens, but it's a specialised lens and 800mm is not necessarily the most suitable focal length.


----------



## becceric (Feb 15, 2022)

Busted Knuckles said:


> I have a copy of the $300 1200mm f10 russian cat lens. Weighs alot, has the diameter of a volley ball. f8 hmmm. It wasnt a total wast of $300 but close.
> 
> Makes a good soft portrait lens at 50 yards


Socially Distant Portraits. A Covid Business Plan. The photographer must wear a “I’m not a peeping Tom.” Tee shirt.


----------



## becceric (Feb 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The RF 600 and 800 f/11s appear to be selling well despite being fixed aperture. The dof isn't usually a problem with the distances used for these long telephotos.


----------



## becceric (Feb 15, 2022)

While photographing small birds, I’ve found stopping down some helps with dof and image quality. I know the RF 600 and 800 f/11s don’t have a great minimum focus distance which somewhat reduces the need for improved dof.


----------



## entoman (Feb 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> My preferences are different from yours, and I am an average shooter. The RF 800mm f/11 is a very nice lens and super value for money. But, you need a shorter zoom with close focussing to go with it for general nature photography. The RF 100-400mm does nicely fill that gap. But, if you have the cash, the RF 100-500mm with TCs is much more versatile and gives me better results, and covers the range of the shorter zoom and long prime. I dispute your statement that the 800mm provides the most suitable focal length. I find that my 100-500mm with 2xTC at 1000mm outresolves my RF 800mm and it produces at least as good images. With the 1.4xTC, it has much snappier AF at 700mm and a much wider focus zone because that of the 800 is restricted to about 40%, and it has better IS. At 700mm, it's really quite good for fast birds in flight. For difficult BIF and DIF, the bare 100-500mm is superb, and its very high sharpness at 500mm often resolves as much detail as the 800mm. I am not running down the RF 800mm, it's a fine lens, but it's a specialised lens and 800mm is not necessarily the most suitable focal length.


The situation isn't quite that straightforward, but we are nevertheless probably in rough agreement:

For context, I have 5DMkiv and R5 bodies, and I currently use the RF 800mm and the EF 100-400mm with 1.4x for birds and general wildlife. Additionally I do a great deal of insect photography, using EF 100mm and 180mm macros. I consider myself a pretty capable photographer, and I've sold a couple of thousand images and filled a couple of books in the 8 years since I retired, but I'm certainly not in the same league as some of the guys who win international competitions.

For perching birds I find the 800mm is better than the zoom and extender. The stabilisation is much better, the working distance is better, and the lens is much lighter to handhold. I wish it focused closer, and I wish the bokeh was nicer, but it's amazing value and has enabled me to get a good number of excellent images. It's also well built, and has survived a drop onto concrete from 3 feet unscathed. So I'd strongly recommend it to anyone, particularly if they are on a fairly tight budget, as are most folk.

The EF 100-400mm focuses faster and has full area AF coverage, plus a wider aperture and the ability to zoom out to locate the subject more easily, so is much better for BIF. It's also far more suitable for general wildlife photography. Reviews indicate that the RF 100-500mm is a bit sharper, focuses slightly faster, and it obviously has the advantage of 500mm at the tele end. I do agree that the 100-500mm is a better option. However, at the moment, I can't justify the expense of switching to the RF 100-500mm and RF extender, and I can't offset the cost by selling the EF 100-400mm, as I need it for the 5DMkiv.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> [..]
> The EF 100-400mm focuses faster and has full area AF coverage, plus a wider aperture and the ability to zoom out to locate the subject more easily, so is much better for BIF. It's also far more suitable for general wildlife photography. Reviews indicate that the RF 100-500mm is a bit sharper, focuses slightly faster, and it obviously has the advantage of 500mm at the tele end. I do agree that the 100-500mm is a better option. However, at the moment, I can't justify the expense of switching to the RF 100-500mm and RF extender, and I can't offset the cost by selling the EF 100-400mm, as I need it for the 5DMkiv.


The increased efficiency of the IS in the RF100-500 compared to the EF100-400II is very noticeable, especially when coupled with IBIS. But as you say, if you have the EF100-400II already, the RF100-500 is not as tempting as when you lack coverage in that range.


----------



## David_D (Feb 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> The situation isn't quite that straightforward, but we are nevertheless probably in rough agreement:



I think you are in rough agreement  The only difference is the RF 100-500mm



AlanF said:


> The RF 800mm f/11 is a very nice lens and super value for money. But, you need a shorter zoom with close focussing to go with it for general nature photography. The RF 100-400mm does nicely fill that gap.



Like @entoman I have that combination. However, I usually start the day (early) with the EF 100-400mm, for the wider aperture, but then swap to the 800mm f/11 as everything is usually just too far away. Once the 800mm is on the R5, it usually never comes off, until evening and the light gets lower*. This will probably change in the Spring/Summer when there are more flowers/insects to photograph, as the minimum focal distance would make this pretty hard!

However...


AlanF said:


> But, if you have the cash, the RF 100-500mm with TCs is much more versatile and gives me better results, and covers the range of the shorter zoom and long prime.



I think I would agree with this and will upgrade when the bank balance has recovered from the R5, but the RF 100-500mm + TCs works out quite expensive. (I could sell the EF 100-400mm to offset the cost, but my daughters are also into photography and are already arguing about who will get it when I upgrade)

Coming back to the topic, I would probably choose the 600mm F/4 as my first big white prime, if I had the money, for the occasions I could use it without carrying it too far, rather than anything longer and use TC to get extra reach. The idea of something intermediate, like 500/600mm F/5.6, for modest cost would be *much more * appealing.

* When I said the 800mm f/11 usually comes off in the evening, on one occasion it didn't. Hesitant to share this image as it is far from a prize winner, but I was astounded what could be achieved with a modern camera, lens and software. First the back-story. We were out on an overcast day, late afternoon and had been watching a roosting short-eared owl, hoping it might wake up and fly closer. It didn't, but we stayed hoping to see a barn owl (as they were also in the area). They didn't show either, but we noticed some movement from the SEO. It was now quite dark and with optics could not make out what was going on, but it looked like there were now two owls. I pointed the camera at them and cranked up the ISO and increased the shutter speed until I could _see_ them through the viewfinder. For fun I fired off a few shots. Most were not good, but this one was taken 30 minutes *after sunset* at *1/4 sec* (no missing 0s) *handheld,* *800mm* f/11 with *ISO 51200*.


Turns out there were 4 owls! A few minutes later we needed a torch to find the way back to our car


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2022)

None of the differences is at the level of being a deal breaker. I'm happy to various degrees using any of the combinations of EF 100-400mm II and EF 400mm DO II ± TCs and RF 100-400mm, 100-500mm and 800mm f/11 on my R5. I've tested these combinations ad nauseam before deciding what to keep. Here is a brief summary.

At longer distances and 800mm, the RF 800mm is as good as the 400mm DO II + 2xTCIII (two copies tested) at f/8. Stopping down to f/11 gives a slight improvement. So, the 800mm f/11 is a clear winner at IQ/$ and IQ/kg beween the two. The EF 100-400mm II + 2x TC is not as good but gives acceptable images. The 100-500mm with 2xTC is the winner because it outresolves all 3 with great IQ.
Close up, the 800mm f/11 packs up at 6m, and is not as good at slightly further distances. The 100-400mm II at 800mm is soft. The 100-500mm at 1000mm is really good. I'm not using the RF 100-400mm with TCs on the R5 but it is OK on the R6 with its larger pixels.

At 400mm, the 400mm DO II is marginally better than the 100-400mm II, but with an extra stop. The RF 100-400mm is remarkably good and not far behind the the 100-400mm II in the centre. But, the 100-500mm at f/7.1 and 500mm outresolves them all. It also maintains the close-up edge. The 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC at 560mm is the best, and the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC similar to the 100-500mm at 500mm and has good AF. The 100-500mm + 1.4xTC at 700mm is really nice.

So, if new RF lenses come out, I'll have a dilemma to see where they best the 100-500mm, especially as I need light lenses and also close focussing while out hiking (more like strolling at my age). A spectacularly sharp RF 400mm f/4 DO with built in TC and can take external TCs well could be of interest, but it is only one stop better than a 500mm f/7.1 in terms of photons per duck). A 500mm f/4 at less than 2 kg with a true 1.66 stop advantage over the zoom would be of real interest for low light and at 1000mm f/8 with a 2xTC a significant advantage for diffraction. If it focusses down to 3m like the 500mm f/5.6 PF, it would be a clincher, despite the price. An 800mm f/6.3 would be of no interest to me, personally, though I can see how it could be good with TCs and be very useful to some.


----------



## john1970 (Feb 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> I use the RF 800mm F11 and also the EF 100-400mm with 1.4x, on my R5.
> 
> For bird photography, despite the fixed F11 aperture, it's almost always the 800mm that provides the most suitable focal length, whether I'm photographing small woodland birds, waders, kingfishers or hummingbirds. The zoom comes into its own when photographing ostriches, secretary birds, vultures and eagles.
> 
> ...


 Unfortunately, I doubt that any 800 mm f5.6 lens will ever be modestly priced. Any lens with that focal length and aperture will likely be a L-series lens and priced similarly to 400 mm f2.8. I also hope that it would be a DO lens to lessen the mass of the lens.


----------



## entoman (Feb 16, 2022)

john1970 said:


> Unfortunately, I doubt that any 800 mm f5.6 lens will ever be modestly priced. Any lens with that focal length and aperture will likely be a L-series lens and priced similarly to 400 mm f2.8. I also hope that it would be a DO lens to lessen the mass of the lens.


"modestly priced" is a relative term. An L-series 800mm F5.6 would probably cost in excess of $6000 but that's still massively more affordable than an 800mm F4. The build quality of Canon's budget 600mm F11, 800mm F11 and RF 100-400mm lenses is surprisingly high. I can't speak for others, but I'd certainly consider a "budget range" 800mm F5.6, if it was sold at a similar or lower price than the RF 100-500mm. There could well be some pressure on Canon to produce such a lens, if Nikon sell their 800mm F6.7 at an "affordable" price.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 16, 2022)

In excess of $6000?
That's optimistic, the current EF version costs Euro 14149 !


----------



## john1970 (Feb 16, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> In excess of $6000?
> That's optimistic, the current EF version costs Euro 14149 !


Exactly! The RF 400 mm f2.8 sells for $11999 USD and I do not see the 800 mm f5.6 costing less. I suspect that will inflation they might make the price $13-14K.


----------



## Murat (Feb 16, 2022)

I have 800mm f11, 800mm f5.6 and 100-500mm. Please note that; 800mm f11 lens behaves


differently (faster focussing) on R3. Most used one is the 800mm f11. Here is the samples…:


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2022)

Murat said:


> I have 800mm f11, 800mm f5.6 and 100-500mm. Please note that; 800mm f11 lens behaves differently (faster focussing) on R3. Most used one is the 800mm f11. Here is the samples…:


The relative merits of lenses depends on the resolution of sensors. Low resolution sensors tolerate narrow lenses better than high resolution: see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/ The R6 and now R3 will work relatively better with a longer focal length f/11 than the R5 relative to a shorter wider lens.


----------



## Murat (Feb 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The relative merits of lenses depends on the resolution of sensors. Low resolution sensors tolerate narrow lenses better than high resolution: see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/ The R6 and now R3 will work relatively better with a longer focal length f/11 than the R5 relative to a shorter wider lens.


Yes I remember this, from old mirror lens days. In adition to that, I feel/observed focusing is faster on r3, than r5 cameras. May be battery power difference?


----------



## Breizh (Feb 16, 2022)

They better deliver R3s before they think about marketing lenses that 95% of photographers can't afford


----------



## entoman (Feb 16, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The increased efficiency of the IS in the RF100-500 compared to the EF100-400II is very noticeable, especially when coupled with IBIS. But as you say, if you have the EF100-400II already, the RF100-500 is not as tempting as when you lack coverage in that range.


I don't doubt the superiority of the RF 100-500mm. The stabilisation efficiency of RF lenses in combination with the R5 is at least 1-2 stops better than EF glass on the same body. However the stabilisation on the EF 100-400mm is more than adequate for my usage, as I'm primarily using it for active wildlife that would require 1/500 or faster to freeze subject movement.

So for me, considering that I also use a 5DMkiv alongside my R5, it makes more sense at the moment to keep the EF model. It's all a question of priorities - I can get stunning images with the EF 100-400mm, and while the RF 100-500 may be better, I'd rather spend my money on travelling. For me, ownership of the latest and greatest gear is very much secondary to being able to travel extensively around the world and enjoy photographing wildlife, so that's where my money goes.

The cost of switching to RF 100-500mm, plus extender, plus the necessary purchase of an additional RF body, is roughly equivalent to the cost of 2 African safaris, and I'll take the latter every time, in preference to buying a modest improvement in lens performance.

Of course, if I was lucky enough to be able to keep on travelling to the same extent, *and* still have thousands of dollars in my back pocket, I'd sell the 5DMkiv, get an additional R5 body, and buy a multitude of RF glass including the 100-500mm, the 14-35mm, the 400mm F2.8 and both the 1.4x and 2x extenders. Or I might change systems entirely.


----------



## Talys (Feb 16, 2022)

Breizh said:


> They better deliver R3s before they think about marketing lenses that 95% of photographers can't afford


Not that I disagree that Canon should deliver R3s, but I don't think that 95%of photographers can afford the R3, either


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 16, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Considering the size, weight and price of a "conventional" 1200mm F8 lens, it makes absolute sense to me if Canon made it as a mirror lens instead.


Mirror lenses traditionally struggle with a lot of optical obstacles. Here's a good review:





__





Mirror Lenses


OpticalLimits - Lens reviews and beyond!




www.opticallimits.com





So it's not so easy to design such a lens in a quality that would be up to what we can expect from Canon. In astronomy, good mirror telescopes have a lot of advanced tech built in.


----------



## Nord0306 (Feb 17, 2022)

I use an EF 100-400 II with 2x tc and R6. I like having the full range of 200-800 for taking pictures of my kids and birds without having to change lenses/tc. Does anyone with the RF 100-500 miss having the full range with TC attached? Besides the $$ cost of switching, this part keeps me from considering the upgrade.


----------



## dolina (Feb 22, 2022)

Keep in mind either will cost more than $13,000 or even more than $17,000


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 22, 2022)

Want an EF 800 5.6 without selling a kidney? About 7200 USD. Kijiji Calgary has one.

Jack


----------

