# Nikon Releases Z 800mm at 1/3 Cost of Canon’s



## [email protected] (Apr 6, 2022)

> Nikon this morning released its Z 800mm f/6.3 PF VR S, a big milestone for the Z mount, which until some weeks ago lacked most serious supertelephoto glass. Rumored only recently to be launching, the lens turns out to be light (5.25 pounds) and cheap ($6,500). It employs Nikon’s PF fresnel technology to significantly shorten the lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## antolalto (Apr 6, 2022)

Canon is embarrassing. I hope this will serve as a lesson, and that we will finally see proper, new RF 300mm and RF 500mm soon. The RF 800mm is almost offensive.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 6, 2022)

Highly impressive both 400 and 800.



antolalto said:


> Canon is embarrassing. I hope this will serve as a lesson, and that we will finally see proper, new RF 300mm and RF 500mm soon. The RF 800mm is almost offensive.


Almost is an understatement.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 6, 2022)

It took all of a minute at launch to hit the buy button on this one. A professional 800mm lens that I can handhold and at the cost of only 1/3rd of a stop less aperture than the much more expensive predecessor is fricken cool.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 6, 2022)

I wouldn't say that Canon is embarrassing, but that I'm super happy Nikon didn't go out of business during its cash crunch a couple years back. The best thing that's happened to us Canon shooters in the past few years is the rapid advancement of the competition. I think we all trust Canon to have the capacity to innovate, but many of us don't trust that they'll deliver it quickly or cheaply without some other companies kicking their shins.

I'm most interested in the fact that you now have a lens gap in Nikon's favor, and a megapixel flagship gap also in Nikon's favor. What a pain in the ass it would be to add a Nikon body just to shoot a whippy 800mm, but when you add in the high resolution, you start to entertain weird thoughts. I could sell one of my R5's and an EF big white Mark II and get a Z9 and 800mm by adding in $3k. No, it's not worth it to me, but the fact I was going through the math is telling.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

The Nikon's MTF curves aren't corrected for diffraction whereas Canon's are, which is the major reason why Nikon's look so much better. I couldn't find the uncorrected MTFs for the EF 800mm f/5.6, but here are the uncorrected and corrected for the EF 600mm f/4 II to show the huge difference. The difference will be greater for f/6.3.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon's MTF curves aren't corrected for diffraction whereas Canon's are, which is the major reason why Nikon's look so much better. I couldn't find the uncorrected MTFs for the EF 800mm f/5.6, but here are the uncorrected and corrected for the EF 600mm f/4 II to show the huge difference. The difference will be greater for f/6.3.
> 
> View attachment 202999
> View attachment 203001


Thanks. I knew these weren't apples-to-apples (they never are), but your calling out the specific factors is really quite useful. Adding to the story.

One thing to note: if the effects of diffraction are similar to past MTF charts, it still would make up only about half of the deficit in apparent image quality.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

I'll repost this here. I've often complained about Canon's price gouging in the UK, which Sony and Nikon don't do. Canon adds on 10-15% (allowing for taxed). The 800/6.3 is €7,299 in the EU and £6299 in the UK, pretty close to the fluctuating exchange rate, and only 5% more than the USD price when allowing for our taxes. That's one up for Nikon.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I'll repost this here. I've often complained about Canon's price gouging in the UK, which Sony and Nikon don't do. Canon adds on 10-15% (allowing for taxed). The 800/6.3 is €7,299 in the EU and £6299 in the UK, pretty close to the fluctuating exchange rate, and only 5% more than the USD price when allowing for our taxes. That's one up for Nikon.


In India its quite opposite, Canon prices are on par with USD or sometimes even lower(after adjusting for taxes). I thinks more of Canon UK or UK itself who might be at fault.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Thanks. I knew these weren't apples-to-apples (they never are), but your calling out the specific factors is really quite useful. Adding to the story.
> 
> One thing to note: if the effects of diffraction are similar to past MTF charts, it still would make up only about half of the deficit in apparent image quality.


In theory, and I think I am using the same equations as them, the 10 lp/mm is lowered by 4% and the 30 lp/mm by 12% at f/6.3. This means from the charts that the old 800mm f/5.6 is indeed not way up there in terms of IQ. The 600/4 II + 1.4xTC is known to be sharper than it.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> In India its quite opposite, Canon prices are on par with USD or sometimes even lower(after adjusting for taxes). I thinks more of Canon UK or UK itself who might be at fault.


No, it's Canon EU. Canon UK aplogised to me (as I have posted previously a couple of times) that they charge what Canon EU dictates.


----------



## rawshooter (Apr 6, 2022)

So..is there a Nikon Z to RF adapter with AF?


----------



## Fbimages (Apr 6, 2022)

I would be really tempted by a Canon equivalent at this price. I love my 500mm f/4 but shoot a lot of birds which require the 1.4x converter. I now use an R3 and I never think twice about high ISOs, so f/6.3 would not be an issue


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 6, 2022)

Typically, switch talk doesn't interest me but this could be a defining moment for certain shooters. (Once again, not me, see my lens list, lol)


----------



## john1970 (Apr 6, 2022)

Amazed to see that Nikon released it at such a price point. Although I an not a fan of PF lenses in general, this combined with a Z9 for ~$12K in USD is a very compelling setup for wildlife.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 6, 2022)

antolalto said:


> Canon is embarrassing. I hope this will serve as a lesson, and that we will finally see proper, new RF 300mm and RF 500mm soon. The RF 800mm is almost offensive.


We'll only see a change in Canon's pricing policy if enough NEW (pro) customers decide in favour of Nikon's Z9 and the new teles.
Especially in Europe, we suffer from abusive pricing by Canon (RF 800 and 1200), which cannot be justified by taxes or other duties.
A US-Europe price difference is OK, but not to the current extent.
If I were new to photography, I'm not certain I'd opt for Canon...
PS: Sony wouldn't be the alternative.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 6, 2022)

Looks great. Happy for Nikon shooters. 

The lens of theirs recently that caught my attention was a 400 f/2.8 with built in TC

I love my 500 f/4 II. But having built in flexibility to quickly pivot focal lengths even a little would be a welcome addition.

I am still hopeful for a 200-500 f/4 with built in 1.4xTC. Otherwise, I am content to stick with my kit. Even with Nikon doing some very good things.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Apr 6, 2022)

I had my heart set on starting to save up for the RF 600mm f4, or RF 400mm f2.8 and teleconverter, to pair with a R6, but as a wildlife photographer and seeing the direction Nikon's going with their telephotos, I've checked to see what my entire kit is worth more times than I'd like to admit. Nikon's AF isn't that far behind Canon's at this point, and they might lose some of their big white users to Nikon once it catches up. Especially if the pricing keeps trending up.


----------



## Pixel (Apr 6, 2022)

Who is surprised by Nikon's 800 blowing Canon's RF 400 2.8 + Permanently attached 2x out of the water?
Yes, this is embarrassing. 
Do better, Canon.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

It's a temptation to switch gear every time another manufacturer comes out with something better, but they leapfrog each other. It's taken Nikon 18 months to equal (better in some ways, worse in others) the AF on Canon's cheaper R5, and the Z 800/6.3 will have limited availability for quite some time. In 18 months time, Canon will undoubtedly have a new generation of bodies and new lenses. So jump to Nikon now and then jump again?


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

antolalto said:


> Canon is embarrassing. I hope this will serve as a lesson, and that we will finally see proper, new RF 300mm and RF 500mm soon. The RF 800mm is almost offensive.


We? Proper? Canon needs no lesson. Merely because someone releases a cheap lens means very little. Most owners of xtra long lenses are not searching for discounts.


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> It took all of a minute at launch to hit the buy button on this one. A professional 800mm lens that I can handhold and at the cost of only 1/3rd of a stop less aperture than the much more expensive predecessor is fricken cool





Photo Bunny said:


> But you know very little about it if you merely purchased it without ever testing it.


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

Click bait. The title speaks for itself.


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

Now let's produce some legitimate Canon rumors.


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

And when released Nikon will release a statement saying it will be delayed for another 6 months because of demand. Knowimg that they will never produce more than a mere handfull


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Continue reading...


Yeah, they will produce and ship a skimpy handfull. So its a meaningless announcent.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

Embarrassing is the right word here for Canon. Honestly, those repackaged superteles and their pricing from Canon were just a kick in the teeth to their bigger spenders. Arrogance is another word that comes to mind; seems like Canon didn’t learn its lesson in humility after Sony ate its lunch for a while there—they are back to their old ways of overcharging and arrogantly releasing incremental improvements to get us paying more money over time. The creeping apertures, pricing, and lack of effort turns me off as someone who spent a lot of money to invest in the RF mount. Nikon’s playing catch-up and has a bold pricing strategy, understood, but they’re really exposing the gouging and ridiculousness of Canon’s strategy right now. Glad they continue to have some competition or we’d all be paying $30k for recycled EF lenses by now and chanting “high ISO images are no problem these days, thank you, Canon!” Gimme a break.

I shoot several systems and in general am not brand loyal, so I don’t really care for the brand wars, but Canon needs to get it together and treat their customers better here. My Canon budget is shifting to the Z mount, not by choice, but really it’s just the principle of the thing at this point. I don’t feel like Canon really gives a damn about me or my business. Nikon also offers a lot more for my money as a wildlife photographer.

And I don’t think we’re looking at a leapfrog scenario here; Canon is on a growing trend and I can’t even imagine them offering something like that 800PF at that price—no way will we see it. They’d cripple it somehow to avoid cannibalizing their larger $20k primes they want you to buy. And they wouldn’t undercut their own pricing strategy with all those superteles at those price points now—too late to go back. No, if you want high-quality in a small package from Canon, you are going to be paying big big bucks…their bar is set.


----------



## MartinVLC (Apr 6, 2022)

For the price of only the RF 800mm f/5.6 (17K$) you get the Nikon 800mm f/6.3 (6.5K$) + the Nikon 100-400mm (2.7K$) + the Nikon Z9 (5.5K$) and you still have 2300 $ left to spend on ice cream or whatever you want. Canon is embarrassing!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Apr 6, 2022)

MartinVLC said:


> For the price of only the RF 800mm f/5.6 (17K$) you get the Nikon 800mm f/6.3 (6.5K$) + the Nikon 100-400mm (2.7K$) + the Nikon Z9 (5.5K$) and you still have 2300 $ left to spend on ice cream or whatever you want. Canon is embarrassing!


... I'd spend the extra 2.300 $ for a round trip to Africa (from Europe) and get some really nice of Safari wildlife shots to get some actual use out of the money spent on gear  And of course, Ice cream at the end of a great day in the Masai Mara


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Apr 6, 2022)

Seems like Canon will be needing a 8.000 $ Cashback program for the overpriced 800mm lense


----------



## dolina (Apr 6, 2022)

$6.5k 800mm f/6.3 at less than 2.39kg. Making this weighing at the middle of a EF300/2.8 IS II & EF200/2.0 IS

It's (1) *1/3rd* the cost at (2) *1/3rd* slower f-stop at (3) *1/2* the weight of faster 800mm lenses.

Front element is equivalent to a 500/4.0

With ISO improvements of 2020s mirrorless bodies makes the 1/3rd stop slower largely a non-issue.


----------



## MartinVLC (Apr 6, 2022)

jam05 said:


> We? Proper? Canon needs no lesson. Merely because someone releases a cheap lens means very little. Most owners of xtra long lenses are not searching for discounts.


If the discount is more than 10K$ even long lense owners might take a look...


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

If one is on an internet forum complaining about the cost of extremely long lenses, they should be renting them. Most professionals earning a living shooting long lenses are searching for bargain prices


[email protected] said:


> I wouldn't say that Canon is embarrassing, but that I'm super happy Nikon didn't go out of business during its cash crunch a couple years back. The best thing that's happened to us Canon shooters in the past few years is the rapid advancement of the competition. I think we all trust Canon to have the capacity to innovate, but many of us don't trust that they'll deliver it quickly or cheaply without some other companies kicking their shins.
> 
> I'm most interested in the fact that you now have a lens gap in Nikon's favor, and a megapixel flagship gap also in Nikon's favor. What a pain in the ass it would be to add a Nikon body just to shoot a whippy 800mm, but when you add in the high resolution, you start to entertain weird thoughts. I could sell one of my R5's and an EF big white Mark II and get a Z9 and 800mm by adding in $3k. No, it's not worth it to me, but the fact I was going through the math is telling.


"In Nikon's favor" is an exageration without comparative facts. There are lens manufacturers that produce alternative lenses however not comparatively. The question to be answered would be, How much did Nikon discount it previous versions.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 6, 2022)

jam05 said:


> We? Proper? Canon needs no lesson. Merely because someone releases a cheap lens means very little. Most owners of xtra long lenses are not searching for discounts.


Where do you see a "cheap" lens? I don't see any. Certainly not Nikon's 800mm.
And nobody, especially a professional photographer, has money to waste...
And I hope an intelligent company like Canon knows that learning a lesson from time to time is a necessity.
There is a nice French expression for what Nikon did: "un pave dans la mare", in English something like "they threw a cobblestone into the pond".


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

Cheap because it a PF lense and most likely a lot of plastic molded on to the glass. However Nikon's PF lenses have traditionally come with a great deal of lens flare that had to be dealt with using work arounds. You get what you pay for. If you can deal with lens flare, go for it. Its a deal breaker for many.


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Where do you see a "cheap" lens? I don't see any. Certainly not Nikon's 800mm.
> And nobody, especially a professional photographer, has money to waste...
> And I hope an intelligent company like Canon knows that learning a lesson from time to time is a necessity.
> There is a nice French expression for what Nikon did: "un pave dans la mare", in English something like "they threw a cobblestone into the pond".


Duh, its a PF lens. Plastic fresnel molded onto glass. Its not rocket science. Do your research. Its not new technogy. Add plastic reduce the glass.


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Highly impressive both 400 and 800.
> 
> 
> Almost is an understatement.


Yeah, spending $6000+ on a plastic fresnel molded to glass lens with lots of lens flare is an understatement.


----------



## jam05 (Apr 6, 2022)

1/3 plastic molded onto the glass. Doesn't take a genious to figure out the savings. Guess the photographer can deal with the subsequent lens flare in post. Admin comes up weird pricing analysis. Whats the price of that added polymer and less elements? Probably should be way less than what Nikon is charging for it.


----------



## Bonich (Apr 6, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Continue reading...


I bunkered the money to get a state of the art big white as described for years now:
- switchable TC integrated
- light
- great IQ
- good close up performance
I turns out this lens to be black with a red ring. The prizing is OK, we get the adequate body including the lens within this prize range.

I would have thrown my money to a 400 with built in TC. And as a bonus this PF 800 as well. Now I have to check availability on the Nikon side.

Oh boy, Canon ....


----------



## dolina (Apr 6, 2022)

I can see people switching to Nikon mirrorless system for this lens. On paper it's that great in terms of price and weight.


----------



## Bonich (Apr 6, 2022)

ncvarsity3 said:


> I had my heart set on starting to save up for the RF 600mm f4, or RF 400mm f2.8 and teleconverter, to pair with a R6, but as a wildlife photographer and seeing the direction Nikon's going with their telephotos, I've checked to see what my entire kit is worth more times than I'd like to admit. Nikon's AF isn't that far behind Canon's at this point, and they might lose some of their big white users to Nikon once it catches up. Especially if the pricing keeps trending up.


set your contacts to Nikon: 100-400 OK, 500PF great, 400/560 great, 800 great. What else do you need for wildlife?


----------



## fred (Apr 6, 2022)

jam05 said:


> 1/3 plastic molded onto the glass. Doesn't take a genious to figure out the savings. Guess the photographer can deal with the subsequent lens flare in post. Admin comes up weird pricing analysis. Whats the price of that added polymer and less elements? Probably
> 
> "jam05" seems to be having a bad day, ~10 angry comments today already…


Jam


----------



## Bonich (Apr 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Seems like Canon will be needing a 8.000 $ Cashback program for the overpriced 800mm lense


I'm OK with a R3 and R1 within the kit for this price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2022)

dolina said:


> I can see people switching to Nikon mirrorless system for this lens. On paper it's that great in terms of price and weight.


Unless people actually vote with their wallets and not just ‘on paper’, Canon won’t care. Nor should they.

My guess is that most people who post something like this:


MartinVLC said:


> For the price of only the RF 800mm f/5.6 (17K$) you get the Nikon 800mm f/6.3 (6.5K$) + the Nikon 100-400mm (2.7K$) + the Nikon Z9 (5.5K$) and you still have 2300 $ left to spend on ice cream or whatever you want. Canon is embarrassing!


…are irrelevant because they don’t have even the price of the Nikon 800/6.3, much less the price of the RF 800/5.6, to spend on camera gear.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 6, 2022)

ncvarsity3 said:


> I had my heart set on starting to save up for the RF 600mm f4, or RF 400mm f2.8 and teleconverter, to pair with a R6, but as a wildlife photographer and seeing the direction Nikon's going with their telephotos, I've checked to see what my entire kit is worth more times than I'd like to admit. Nikon's AF isn't that far behind Canon's at this point, and they might lose some of their big white users to Nikon once it catches up. Especially if the pricing keeps trending up.


I not missing any shots with the Z9. It’s AF is rather spot on and we are only on its first firmware. Though there is no reason to switch in my mind, if you have existing investment just get the Nikon Z9 and Nikon lenses you need to complement your Canon stuff. Though I should add that the gold VCR side has a upcoming 200-600 and 400 f/4.0 or f/4.5 PF lens coming up.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 6, 2022)

Hurray for competition!


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

There will most definitely be folks voting with their wallets. We saw this with the previous 500PF and the wildlife community. This is magnified by the massive gap in pricing and the stellar specs on this lens. I’ve been ready to pull the trigger on a new RF supertele and was hoping those 400 and 600s were one-offs, but then they released similar 800 and 1200s. I don’t care if folks call me “not pro enough” because I’m complaining about pricing and lack of effort, you don’t just go rationally drop $20k on a lens just because it says Canon on it when there are better options and pricing out there. Nikon is making a fool of them right now. My $12,000 budgeted for a big white this year will be going to a Z9 and an 800PF, so that’s what voting looks like. I won’t be alone. Sad that some folks seem to think companies like Canon are too big to care and that leading the market means you don’t actually need to give a damn about your customers. That’s fine short-term, but catches up to you.

BTW, it’s frustrating not because we’re pearl clutching, but that you put so much time and energy into a system, learning it, perfecting it, and want it to succeed, but the company winds up taking advantage of the fact that you’re buying a system and they can sucker you out of more money with a lesser product because they’re betting you won’t leave. You wind up having to invest in several, which is a lot of work and money. Alas, some companies never change and that might be the lesson here.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Apr 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unless people actually vote with their wallets and not just ‘on paper’, Canon won’t care. Nor should they.


If people do vote with their wallets, Canon MUST care because they'll be/ are in trouble. There are so many people thinking about getting the Z9 (or Z7) and the 800mm lense. And this will only be a starting point into the Z-mount for some of them. German camera forums are full of people (Sony and Canon) pushing the preorder button on this one...


neuroanatomist said:


> My guess is that most people who post something like this:
> 
> …are irrelevant because they don’t have even the price of the Nikon 800/6.3, much less the price of the RF 800/5.6, to spend on camera gear.


I honestly disagree. Income for pro sports photographers (and wild-life so I hear) have gone done tremendously. This is based on statements of pro photographers at Bundesliga soccer games in my region, so it's definitely not a joke. 
They have to calculate their budget more cautiously and a 10.000 $ PLUS difference you don't even have to do the math... 

Oh, a lot of these people do fill the comment sections of camera forums, so I don't your statement is correct.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2022)

northlarch said:


> There will most definitely be folks voting with their wallets. We saw this with the previous 500PF and the wildlife community.


Of course there will. I should’ve stated, unless _enough_ people vote with their wallets. The ‘wildlife community’ doesn’t seem to be a large market, especially the subsegment of it that will spend >$6K on a lens.

One could similarly argue that the paparazzi community will vote with their wallets for the 1200/8.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

If the wildlife community was not such a large market, we wouldn’t see the big three scrambling to acquire them. Canon put out these supertele lenses so quickly because they know wildlife shooters, while only a subset of the market, spend a TON of money. And we don’t usually just shoot wildlife, BTW. Then you have Nikon who undercut with pricing on their Z9 and scrambled to release the 400 2.8 and this 800PF. They’re also releasing rumors of other PFs to lure wildlife shooters. Sony released their superteles early, as well, and built up a huge strategic advantage with birders and wildlife. Lump us in with the sports and paparazzi shooters if that makes you feel better, but we buy a lot of the same expensive goods and are not a small market or you wouldn’t see these companies making lenses like this and scrambling for market share with us.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Apr 6, 2022)

I think everyone that owns Canon and is excited about this announcement should immediately sell all their Canon gear on ebay and never look back. I'm confident there are plenty of people that would enjoy your used Canon stuff.


----------



## SHAMwow (Apr 6, 2022)

northlarch said:


> There will most definitely be folks voting with their wallets. We saw this with the previous 500PF and the wildlife community. This is magnified by the massive gap in pricing and the stellar specs on this lens. I’ve been ready to pull the trigger on a new RF supertele and was hoping those 400 and 600s were one-offs, but then they released similar 800 and 1200s. I don’t care if folks call me “not pro enough” because I’m complaining about pricing and lack of effort, you don’t just go rationally drop $20k on a lens just because it says Canon on it when there are better options and pricing out there. Nikon is making a fool of them right now. My $12,000 budgeted for a big white this year will be going to a Z9 and an 800PF, so that’s what voting looks like. I won’t be alone. Sad that some folks seem to think companies like Canon are too big to care and that leading the market means you don’t actually need to give a damn about your customers. That’s fine short-term, but catches up to you.
> 
> BTW, it’s frustrating not because we’re pearl clutching, but that you put so much time and energy into a system, learning it, perfecting it, and want it to succeed, but the company winds up taking advantage of the fact that you’re buying a system and they can sucker you out of more money with a lesser product because they’re betting you won’t leave. You wind up having to invest in several, which is a lot of work and money. Alas, some companies never change and that might be the lesson here.


Just curious, what do you currently own from Canon? Did you invest in RF like buying an R6 or R5?


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

tbgtomcom said:


> I think everyone that owns Canon and is excited about this announcement should immediately sell all their Canon gear on ebay and never look back. I'm confident there are plenty of people that would enjoy your used Canon stuff.


Sounds more like a cult to me. If you own one brand you can’t be excited for another brand’s product announcement, otherwise you should sell all your gear? “Loyalty at all costs,” they chanted.

Love my R5 and 100-500. I will continue getting my money’s worth from that setup. Sadly even if I wanted to buy any of the RF superteles I’m complaining about, they likely wouldn’t be in my possession yet to sell on eBay. And at that point I’m already overpriced by $4,000-$8,000 with the longer options so I’d take another big hit on the used market. I’m guessing that’s the strategy—not a lot of folks will do that so you’re just kind of screwed and stay with the system.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Apr 6, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Sounds more like a cult to me. If you own one brand you can’t be excited for another brand’s product announcement, otherwise you should sell all your gear? “Loyalty at all costs,” they chanted.
> 
> Love my R5 and 100-500. I will continue getting my money’s worth from that setup. Sadly even if I wanted to buy any of the RF superteles I’m complaining about, they likely wouldn’t be in my possession yet to sell on eBay. And at that point I’m already overpriced by $4,000-$8,000 with the longer options so I’d take another big hit on the used market. I’m guessing that’s the strategy—not a lot of folks will do that so you’re just kind of screwed and stay with the system.


You are absolutely a "grass is greener on the other side" kind of personality. Good for you. The RF system is only a couple years old and people are already complaining about their major investments. I'm tickled that you're so fickle.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> If people do vote with their wallets, Canon MUST care because they'll be/ are in trouble.


There’s zero evidence Canon is in any sort of trouble. They currently dominate the ILC market, Sony is second, Nikon is well back in third.



Exploreshootshare said:


> There are so many people thinking about getting the Z9 (or Z7) and the 800mm lense. And this will only be a starting point into the Z-mount for some of them. German camera forums are full of people (Sony and Canon) pushing the preorder button on this one...


How many people is ‘so many’? Also, ‘thinking about getting’ something is meaningless. Car forums are full of people ‘thinking about getting’ Ferraris and Porsches. Mostly, they dream and specurbate and if they buy anything, it’s a Toyota or a Ford.



Exploreshootshare said:


> I honestly disagree. Income for pro sports photographers (and wild-life so I hear) have gone done tremendously. This is based on statements of pro photographers at Bundesliga soccer games in my region, so it's definitely not a joke.
> They have to calculate their budget more cautiously and a 10.000 $ PLUS difference you don't even have to do the math...


Do you think a lot of sports photographers, like those shooting soccer games, are using 800mm lenses?

Regardless, thanks for supporting my point, even though I know that wasn’t your intent. Budgets _are_ tight and the professional photography market is suffering. That means current pro photographers, who already have gear they’re using, are much less likely to buy _any_ expensive new lenses, whether they cost $6K or $16K. New photographers, those who would _need_ to buy expensive lenses, are less likely to jump into a shrinking profession that’s rapidly becoming less lucrative.

Overall, that means fewer lens sales, not more.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

tbgtomcom said:


> You are absolutely a "grass is greener on the other side" kind of personality. Good for you. The RF system is only a couple years old and people are already complaining about their major investments. I'm tickled that you're so fickle.


I guess we can’t all be as wealthy and successful as you. I’ve spent about $35k on the RF system thus far and that’s a lot of money for me. I’m self-employed in the middle of a global pandemic and make my entire living off of wildlife photography. So yeah, if you’re asking me if $13,500 extra in my pocket is greener grass, going with Nikon’s 800 over Canon’s, I’d say yes…call me crazy. I’d argue the blind loyalty is more expensive.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Apr 6, 2022)

northlarch said:


> I guess we can’t all be as wealthy and successful as you. I’ve spent about $35k on the RF system thus far and that’s a lot of money for me. I’m self-employed in the middle of a global pandemic and make my entire living off of wildlife photography. So yeah, if you’re asking me if $13,500 extra in my pocket is greener grass, I’d say yes…call me crazy. I’d say the blind loyalty is more expensive.


I hear Nikon is having a sale...


----------



## entoman (Apr 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's a temptation to switch gear every time another manufacturer comes out with something better, but they leapfrog each other. It's taken Nikon 18 months to equal (better in some ways, worse in others) the AF on Canon's cheaper R5, and the Z 800/6.3 will have limited availability for quite some time. In 18 months time, Canon will undoubtedly have a new generation of bodies and new lenses. So jump to Nikon now and then jump again?


That's a very good point. It really depends on how deeply someone is tied to a system, and on how high a percentage of their shots would benefit from the "latest" lens or body from an alternative brand. It also depends a great deal on how wealthy the photographer is, and on whether or not they are happy to relearn muscle memory. Another consideration is how urgent is the need/desire for better gear.

In 18 months time, it's *possible* that Canon might have a similar (or better) lens, and it's *possible* but highly unlikely IMO that they'd match the Nikon for price, especially as the price of the Nikon will have dropped considerably by then. Also, while the Z 800/6.3 will have limited ability for a while, the same is also likely to be true if/when Canon launch a similar lens.

What I'll say is this: If the bulk of my photography was birds, I'd definitely get a Z9 and the Nikon 800/6.3, in fact I'd put in a pre-order instantly.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

tbgtomcom said:


> I hear Nikon is having a sale...


Can’t buy class with all that money, Tom.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 6, 2022)

Going through a lot of popcorn over here!


----------



## tbgtomcom (Apr 6, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Can’t buy class with all that money, Tom.


Pity, you could use some. Sell some more wildlife photos, maybe your ship will come in.


----------



## Alan B (Apr 6, 2022)

Steve Perry likes it (great insight)


----------



## 1D4 (Apr 6, 2022)

MartinVLC said:


> For the price of only the RF 800mm f/5.6 (17K$) you get the Nikon 800mm f/6.3 (6.5K$) + the Nikon 100-400mm (2.7K$) + the Nikon Z9 (5.5K$) and you still have 2300 $ left to spend on ice cream or whatever you want. Canon is embarrassing!



Not to be a Canon cheerleader, but the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E is over $16,000, so you could say the same thing about that lens. That being said, I've said for a long time that Canon needs to make light/compact lenses equivalent to the 300PF and 500PF, and I don't know why they haven't, as they'd sell like hotcakes, much like the Nikons have.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2022)

northlarch said:


> If the wildlife community was not such a large market, we wouldn’t see the big three scrambling to acquire them. Canon put out these supertele lenses so quickly because they know wildlife shooters, while only a subset of the market, spend a TON of money.


I’d wager that Canon/Sony/Nikon make far more total profit on sales of 24-xx and 70-200 zooms than on supertele primes.

Supertele lenses are meant to be conspicuous on the sidelines of televised events and other locales. There’s a reason Canon paints them white (and Sony copied that), and it has nothing to do with keeping fluorite cool (which Nikon previously claimed was why their ED elements were better than fluorite, at least they claimed that until they started putting fluorite elements in their black lenses).

I get that you’re a wildlife photographer and you want to think your view represent a large segment of the market. Anecdotes and inference aren’t data.


----------



## reefroamer (Apr 6, 2022)

Maybe this will push Canon to introduce a well-featured R7 (APS-C) body at around $2,500. Joined with the excellent RF 100-500, the 1.6x crop factor would yield 800mm equivalent @ f7.1. Such a body-lens combo would be under $6,000. While ceding a few megapixels to the Z9/PF800, the crop combo would be lighter and far more affordable to many more shooters. Oh, and that $1,000 RF 800 becomes 1280mm at f11 on the same crop body. Recall the popularity among wildlife shooters of the 7D/100-400 combo. Canon does have some options here.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’d wager that Canon/Sony/Nikon make far more total profit on sales of 24-xx and 70-200 zooms than on supertele primes.
> 
> Supertele lenses are meant to be conspicuous on the sidelines of televised events and other locales. There’s a reason Canon paints them white (and Sony copied that), and it has nothing to do with keeping fluorite cool (which Nikon previously claimed was why their ED elements were better than fluorite, at least they claimed that until they started putting fluorite elements in their black lenses).
> 
> I get that you’re a wildlife photographer and you want to think your view represent a large segment of the market. Anecdotes and inference aren’t data.


You’re telling me that anecdotes and inference aren’t data, and yet you’re presenting your own as conjecture. I don’t have the data—do you? I’m making assumptions based on observations; these three massive companies are scrambling early for wildlife/sports/PJs and the only conclusion I arrive at is because it makes them loads of money. We buy roughly the same products, so when they release superteles and fast pro bodies, that’s the market we’re talking about here. It’s their top-tier products…


----------



## john1970 (Apr 6, 2022)

1D4 said:


> Not to be a Canon cheerleader, but the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E is over $16,000, so you could say the same thing about that lens. That being said, I've said for a long time that Canon needs to make light/compact lenses equivalent to the 300PF and 500PF, and I don't know why they haven't, as they'd sell like hotcakes, much like the Nikons have.


This is a very good point to make. One could ask of Nikon how can a F-mount 800 mm f5.6 sell for $16K while a Z mount 800 mm f6.3 sells for ~$6? In all serious where are the savings in the Z mount? Are PF lenses 3x less costly to produce that typical fluorite-based super telephoto lenses?


----------



## john1970 (Apr 6, 2022)

Serious question: The Nikon 800 mm f5.6 in F mount cost $16.3K while the newly announced Nikon 800 mm f6.3 in Z mount cost $6.5K. How is this possible? Are PF lenses that much less expensive to produce? Does going from f6.3 to f5.6 at such long focal length that much more costly?


----------



## Vilacom (Apr 6, 2022)

This from Nikon is really confusing to me, a company says they can deliver top tier professional results for 1/3 the price and like half the weight(and a $6500 lens is still absolutely a niche top level professional lens) and to showcase this incredible step in lens development they use it to release a lens that only hardcore professional sports and wildlife photographers will use assuming they even want an 800mm. Why not release a lighter less expensive 70-200 2.8 that basically every single professional photographer on the planet would love to have as an option regardless of their specialty? Why release a 400mm f2.8 not two months ago that is double the price of this lens? Clearly this was being worked on at the same time. 

Ultimately this release....kind of doesn't matter unless its the start of this kind of price and weight reduction for all lenses with no loss in the quality people have come to expect from professional level products from any company. If this is where the industry is going then we will all eventually enjoy the benefits, but somehow I don't think this single lens is going to cause the kind of upheaval the social media space is jumping on right now


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

Vilacom said:


> This from Nikon is really confusing to me, a company says they can deliver top tier professional results for 1/3 the price and like half the weight(and a $6500 lens is still absolutely a niche top level professional lens) and to showcase this incredible step in lens development they use it to release a lens that only hardcore professional sports and wildlife photographers will use assuming they even want an 800mm. Why not release a lighter less expensive 70-200 2.8 that basically every single professional photographer on the planet would love to have as an option regardless of their specialty? Why release a 400mm f2.8 not two months ago that is double the price of this lens? Clearly this was being worked on at the same time.
> 
> Ultimately this release....kind of doesn't matter unless its the start of this kind of price and weight reduction for all lenses with no loss in the quality people have come to expect from professional level products from any company. If this is where the industry is going then we will all eventually enjoy the benefits, but somehow I don't think this single lens is going to cause the kind of upheaval the social media space is jumping on right now


Some fair questions in there. I think ultimately Nikon sees their advantage in lens development, particularly supertelephoto lenses. They take pride in the professional wildlife/birding community, which is obviously what this lens is catered to. Sure, some PJs and sports shooters will opt for this depending on their beat, but we saw a similar example already in their 500PF. That lens caused an uproar from this same community, and I’m guessing must have been a huge boon for Nikon because here they are, yet again, going for that market with a similar move and lens. This is their first PF for the Z mount and they really have no competition in this space—Canon’s DO line and pricing strategy is not up to the task—so start with your biggest advantage and let it trickle down. We’ll definitely see more PFs in the lower end of teles. Besides, look at Canon’s RF 70-200; it’s not going to be as huge of an advantage going with PF technology by comparison. Just my opinion. This 800PF is a lens that will absolutely bring in new Z system users, both transitioning from the F mount as well as other brands. The 500PF did that as, well—there was nothing else like it and it’s a big draw for this community with limited options and handholding large glass.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2022)

john1970 said:


> Serious question: The Nikon 800 mm f5.6 in F mount cost $16.3K while the newly announced Nikon 800 mm f6.3 in Z mount cost $6.5K. How is this possible? Are PF lenses that much less expensive to produce? Does going from f6.3 to f5.6 at such long focal length that much more costly?


Perhaps Nikon is sacrificing profit in an attempt to gain market share. They were #2, now they’re #3. The ILC market is shrinking, and cameras represent a larger fraction of the company for Nikon than for Canon (and only a tiny fraction for Sony). Desperate times call for desperate measures.


----------



## Vilacom (Apr 6, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Some fair questions in there. I think ultimately Nikon sees their advantage in lens development, particularly supertelephoto lenses. They take pride in the professional wildlife/birding community, which is obviously what this lens is catered to. Sure, some PJs and sports shooters will opt for this depending on their beat, but we saw a similar example already in their 500PF. That lens caused an uproar from this same community, and I’m guessing must have been a huge boon for Nikon because here they are, yet again, going for that market with a similar move and lens. This is their first PF for the Z mount and they really have no competition in this space—Canon’s DO line and pricing strategy is not up to the task—so start with your biggest advantage and let it trickle down. We’ll definitely see more PFs in the lower end of teles. Besides, look at Canon’s RF 70-200; it’s not going to be as huge of an advantage going with PF technology by comparison. Just my opinion. This 800PF is a lens that will absolutely bring in new Z system users, both transitioning from the F mount as well as other brands. The 500PF did that as, well—there was nothing else like it and it’s a big draw for this community with limited options and handholding large glass.


I get what you're saying, and hey if this is where lenses are going and it maintains quality for all the different shooters then great! I guess the biggest bit of confusion still is the fact that they released a 400mm f/2.8 two months ago that's $2000 more than the canon equivalent, its just a strange set of releases if you have the ability to get similar/higher quality in these kinds of lenses for VASTLY cheaper...but then not to do that for other things that would absolutely see the same benefit


----------



## entoman (Apr 6, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> There appears to be just three downsides to the Nikon lens:
> 
> 
> The aperture is 1/3rd stop smaller than most 800mm supertelephotos.
> ...


No one is going to care about losing 1/3 stop, unless they are absolutely fanatical about F-number bragging rights.

Minimum focus distance is a bit of a problem, as with the Canon RF 800mm F11, which would restrict its usage in certain scenarios, such as working from a hide where perches have been placed at too short a distance. So definitely a factor to take into consideration.

Fixing to a Nikon body might actually be seen as an advantage, not a disadvantage, since the launch of the Z9.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> No one is going to care about losing 1/3 stop, unless they are absolutely fanatical about F-number bragging rights.
> 
> Minimum focus distance is a bit of a problem, as with the Canon RF 800mm F11, which would restrict its usage in certain scenarios, such as working from a hide where perches have been placed at too short a distance. So definitely a factor to take into consideration.
> 
> Fixing to a Nikon body might actually be seen as an advantage, not a disadvantage, since the launch of the Z9.


tiggy’s comment about Nikon was tongue in cheek.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

Vilacom said:


> I get what you're saying, and hey if this is where lenses are going and it maintains quality for all the different shooters then great! I guess the biggest bit of confusion still is the fact that they released a 400mm f/2.8 two months ago that's $2000 more than the canon equivalent, its just a strange set of releases if you have the ability to get similar/higher quality in these kinds of lenses for VASTLY cheaper...but then not to do that for other things that would absolutely see the same benefit


You’re paying for the additional light, speed, and versatility in the 400 2.8 with built in TC. It’s basically two large primes in one—a 560 f4, as well. Not to mention adding TCs externally. Incredibly versatile and useful for wildlife photographers going for the ultimate in image quality. It’s a brilliant design for a wide range of users in this space—sports, wildlife, PJs.

The 800PF is basically the same size as the 400 2.8 due to the PF, but it’s lacking the versatility, the additional light, and speed by comparison. A handholdable native 800 at this quality is unheard of, though. You’re talking using TCs as well, walking around getting 1600mm, high-quality images. The extra light is a debate that’s been going on for years—how much to pay for the additional light/speed at this range. This 800 is also mostly birders and really only birders/wildlife shooters, although a few PJs and sports guys will add it.

If I’m evaluating my options here, which I am, they’re two *very* different lens options for different uses. I’m using the 800PF to go birding with a walk around lens. I’ll use it for wolves and grizzlies walking around Yellowstone and wanting to remain nimble without a tripod. I can take this into the backcountry and get 1600mm. It’s a lot of lens for the price, but it is a special use lens. You’re still losing the light, though, and a little bit of subject separation; I think that’s the crux of your question—you’re paying an awful lot more for that and some find that a worthy trade off while others don’t.


----------



## Czardoom (Apr 6, 2022)

1D4 said:


> Not to be a Canon cheerleader, but the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E is over $16,000, so you could say the same thing about that lens. That being said, I've said for a long time that Canon needs to make light/compact lenses equivalent to the 300PF and 500PF, and I don't know why they haven't, as they'd sell like hotcakes, much like the Nikons have.


Yes, we don't know why. Perhaps patent issues? Perhaps, since they haven't produced any PF lenses up to now, they are working on designing new lenses, which may take up to to 3 to 5 years until we hear about them (which seems to be the time it takes for lens design). Lots of forum folks seem to think a new lens (and cameras, too) can be designed and produced in a year or so. Nope. It may be 5 years until we can compare the Canon RF and the Nikon Z lens lineups.


----------



## Vilacom (Apr 6, 2022)

northlarch said:


> You’re paying for the additional light, speed, and versatility in the 400 2.8 with built in TC. It’s basically two large primes in one—a 560 f4, as well. Not to mention adding TCs externally. Incredibly versatile and useful for wildlife photographers going for the ultimate in image quality. It’s a brilliant design for a wide range of users in this space—sports, wildlife, PJs.
> 
> The 800PF is basically the same size as the 400 2.8 due to the PF, but it’s lacking the versatility, the additional light, and speed by comparison. A handholdable native 800 at this quality is unheard of, though. You’re talking using TCs as well, walking around getting 1600mm, high-quality images. The extra light is a debate that’s been going on for years—how much to pay for the additional light/speed at this range. This 800 is also mostly birders and really only birders/wildlife shooters, although a few PJs and sports guys will add it.
> 
> If I’m evaluating my options here, which I am, they’re two *very* different lens options for different uses. I’m using the 800PF to go birding with a walk around lens. I’ll use it for wolves and grizzlies walking around Yellowstone and wanting to remain nimble without a tripod. I can take this into the backcountry and get 1600mm. It’s a lot of lens for the price, but it is a special use lens. You’re still losing the light, though, and a little bit of subject separation; I think that’s the crux of your question—you’re paying an awful lot more for that and some find that a worthy trade off while others don’t.


My question is if the PF version of an 800mm lens is worthwhile and as you've noted a very popular option for those who want something like this, then with the capability to release an 800mm PF that supposedly competes or exceeds the quality of a standard glass element lens like the canon, where is the PF 400 2.8? That would have been developed almost simultaneously with this lens and surely people who shoot with the 400mm are also interested in lighter less expensive glass that maintains professional quality?


----------



## northlarch (Apr 6, 2022)

Vilacom said:


> My question is if the PF version of an 800mm lens is worthwhile and as you've noted a very popular option for those who want something like this, then with the capability to release an 800mm PF that supposedly competes or exceeds the quality of a standard glass element lens like the canon, where is the PF 400 2.8? That would have been developed almost simultaneously with this lens and surely people who shoot with the 400mm are also interested in lighter less expensive glass that maintains professional quality?


My limited understanding of the PF technology is that its strength is in size reduction and smaller footprints but maintaining high image quality. If you put the PF technology in a 400 2.8 for the sake of making it smaller, you’ve still got the same physics diameter needed to capture that amount of light, so perhaps your PF size advantage is limited or insignificant. Whereas if you put it in the smaller package with a third or more loss of light and diameter, the advantage shines purposefully in a smaller lens and you’ve got market segmentation between the lenses that makes sense. I could be wrong but that’s my understanding. If they could make the larger diameter primes with PF tech in a smaller, cheaper package, we’d all buy them. Doesn’t seem like good business sense, but maybe that’s where things are heading. My education on this tech is limited admittedly. I like having the options, though.


----------



## peters (Apr 7, 2022)

rawshooter said:


> So..is there a Nikon Z to RF adapter with AF?


My first thought! 
Incredible price for an incredible lense! 
I would love to go on safari one day with such a lense. Last time I had the Canon 100-400mm f4,5-5,6L II IS. Which is great, but sometimes a little bit more reach would be great. Though often the amount of air between the lense and the subject is distorting the image anyway :-D


----------



## Otara (Apr 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps Nikon is sacrificing profit in an attempt to gain market share. They were #2, now they’re #3. The ILC market is shrinking, and cameras represent a larger fraction of the company for Nikon than for Canon (and only a tiny fraction for Sony). Desperate times call for desperate measures.


Thats my take too, they know they have to make an impact both by being noticed and increasing share.

Given they probably cant produce this very quickly, Id say its more about visibility than even share.


----------



## entoman (Apr 7, 2022)

Much as I love my R5 - 

The Z9, 800mm F6.3 and 100mm macro are almost enough to get me to switch to Nikon.
If Nikon announced a stabilised 180mm or 200mm macro, that would swing it for me.

Recent and impending gear from Nikon are causing me to delay decisions about getting deeper into the Canon system.


----------



## entoman (Apr 7, 2022)

peters said:


> My first thought!
> Incredible price for an incredible lense!
> I would love to go on safari one day with such a lense. Last time I had the Canon 100-400mm f4,5-5,6L II IS. Which is great, but sometimes a little bit more reach would be great. Though often the amount of air between the lense and the subject is distorting the image anyway :-D


Yes, atmospheric haze can impact very heavily on image quality when shooting subjects in the mid distance. Often it's better to try and get closer with a 400mm than to shoot from way back with a 800mm. Best time of day is just after sunrise, when lighting is beautiful and haze is minimal. 800mm is a great choice for small birds though, which can be hard to approach, and are usually no more than 5-10 metres away.


----------



## reef58 (Apr 7, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Embarrassing is the right word here for Canon. Honestly, those repackaged superteles and their pricing from Canon were just a kick in the teeth to their bigger spenders. Arrogance is another word that comes to mind; seems like Canon didn’t learn its lesson in humility after Sony ate its lunch for a while there—they are back to their old ways of overcharging and arrogantly releasing incremental improvements to get us paying more money over time. The creeping apertures, pricing, and lack of effort turns me off as someone who spent a lot of money to invest in the RF mount. Nikon’s playing catch-up and has a bold pricing strategy, understood, but they’re really exposing the gouging and ridiculousness of Canon’s strategy right now. Glad they continue to have some competition or we’d all be paying $30k for recycled EF lenses by now and chanting “high ISO images are no problem these days, thank you, Canon!” Gimme a break.
> 
> I shoot several systems and in general am not brand loyal, so I don’t really care for the brand wars, but Canon needs to get it together and treat their customers better here. My Canon budget is shifting to the Z mount, not by choice, but really it’s just the principle of the thing at this point. I don’t feel like Canon really gives a damn about me or my business. Nikon also offers a lot more for my money as a wildlife photographer.
> 
> And I don’t think we’re looking at a leapfrog scenario here; Canon is on a growing trend and I can’t even imagine them offering something like that 800PF at that price—no way will we see it. They’d cripple it somehow to avoid cannibalizing their larger $20k primes they want you to buy. And they wouldn’t undercut their own pricing strategy with all those superteles at those price points now—too late to go back. No, if you want high-quality in a small package from Canon, you are going to be paying big big bucks…their bar is set.


6 Months ago everyone was covering Nikon with dirt, now they are the greatest since sliced bread. It is fine and dandy to get cheaper gear, but if camera companies don't make enough profit to make it worth while they will throw in the towel. Be careful in hoping for a race to the bottom. 

If is nice to have three major players in the market. Keeps prices in check and innovation ongoing.

Don't forget Canon has an 800mm lens for less than $1000 since no one cares about f stop anymore.


----------



## Czardoom (Apr 7, 2022)

reef58 said:


> 6 Months ago everyone was covering Nikon with dirt, now they are the greatest since sliced bread. It is fine and dandy to get cheaper gear, but if camera companies don't make enough profit to make it worth while they will throw in the towel. Be careful in hoping for a race to the bottom.
> 
> If is nice to have three major players in the market. Keeps prices in check and innovation ongoing.
> 
> Don't forget Canon has an 800mm lens for less than $1000 since no one cares about f stop anymore.


I know most forum folks dismiss anything but full frame, but I would certainly consider OM System (formerly Olympus) when it comes to wildlife and BIF. So, maybe not a major player in forum members' minds, but certainly a 4th alternative to the "big 3". If you are looking for much cheaper, much smaller, much lighter, I would consider adding a new OM-1 and an Olympus 100-400mm lens if you are looking for 800mm reach for wildlife and birds. People are talking about switching to the Nikon Z9 and this 800mm lens which would cost $12,000, compared to $3,600 for the new OM-1 camera and lens. This Nikon lens - while very impressively priced and small and light - is still twice as heavy as the Olympus 100-400 and over 4 times as expensive. Plus you get the significant advantage (in my opinion) of having a zoom.

Yes, the Olympus 100-400 is not a "PRO" lens, nor a fast lens, so you could choose the Olympus 300mm f/4 (equivament 600mm reach) instead. Adding a 1.4 teleconverter will get you over 800mm and it will still be less than half the price of the Nikon 800mm PF (about $3200 for the lens and 1.4 TC) and about 700 grams lighter. Yes, these MFT alternatives will give you higher equivalent F stops resulting in less bokeh and more noise. For me, the advantages of cost, size and weight far outweigh the disadvantages. Most of my BIF shots are against blue skies or backgrounds considerably far away, that bokeh is not an issue. Noise reduction programs like Topaz and others, make any additional noise (usually rather minor compared to my FF camera) a non-issue.

Plus, Olympus and OM system gives you Pro-Capture, allowing you to catch the action before you actually hit the shutter button. A great feature. If I'm not mistaken, Canon has it in the M6 II (?), but can't understand why it's not in the R5, R6 or R3. (or is it? If it is, please let me and everyone else know.)


----------



## dolina (Apr 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unless people actually vote with their wallets and not just ‘on paper’, Canon won’t care. Nor should they.
> 
> My guess is that most people who post something like this:
> 
> …are irrelevant because they don’t have even the price of the Nikon 800/6.3, much less the price of the RF 800/5.6, to spend on camera gear.



The price of the Z 800mm is $6.5k and RF800mm 5.6 is $17k.

I've had the 2008 EF800mm for over 13 years and on paper the price & weight of the Z 800mm is good enough for me to consider selling my EF800mm at a $1,500 lower price than the Z 800mm MSRP.

Back in 2008 when I was evaluating between the EF800mm and the original EF600mm IS my priories were (1) weight and (2) age of technology. I chose the the EF800mm as it started shipping weeks before the purchase and was nearly 1kg lighter.

Many birders contended that it was slower by 1 stop but to which I counter it had multiple stops of a newer IS system. I'd lose the flexibility of being able to use a 1.4x with a 600/4 that allows for 840/5.6. 40mm more focal length at diminishing image quality from circa 1999 materials science is not something i particularly like.

Over a dozen years I've traveled extensively with this 800mm by kilometers on foot, by plane both internationally and domestically and rubber boat for inter island travel.

My conclusion is: 1/2 the weight is half the weight and at 1/3rd the price... it's no contest.

If someone approached me toay about a birding setup from scratch I'd recommend they build around this Z 800mm lens.

It's (1) *1/3rd* the cost at (2) *1/3rd* slower f-stop at (3) *1/2* the weight of faster 800mm lenses.

If they balk at the above $1,000 price tag then I'd suggest the 800/11 STM

After photo news agencies the typical buyer of birding & wildlife lenses are over 60yo who typically avoid weight training. Very atypical that under 40 who do CrossFit would spend on something like this as they have better things to do.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 7, 2022)

reef58 said:


> 6 Months ago everyone was covering Nikon with dirt, now they are the greatest since sliced bread. It is fine and dandy to get cheaper gear, but if camera companies don't make enough profit to make it worth while they will throw in the towel. Be careful in hoping for a race to the bottom.
> 
> If is nice to have three major players in the market. Keeps prices in check and innovation ongoing.
> 
> Don't forget Canon has an 800mm lens for less than $1000 since no one cares about f stop anymore.


Agreed on the competition being good. We all know what Canon would offer us without it. Goes for all the companies, really, but Canon is without a doubt the worst culprit.

Quoting my post and saying everyone was throwing dirt on Nikon—I was not. I’m open to any of the brands and encourage them all to succeed. Canon is price gouging and offering lesser products for more money; that’s deserving of criticism. After all, if everyone just sits by and takes it, these companies wouldn’t change. People are welcome to cheer on their brands all they want but when the brands screw them, it’s good to speak up so they don’t continue doing it. Everyone loses when folks are doing their damage control for them.

I haven’t shot with the 800 f/11 because I have a hard enough time with my 100-500 at f/7.1 and moving critters at dusk. I’m sure it’s a great lens for some folks, just not me and my shooting style. Nice to have options though, agreed. And not worrying about apertures is a bit of a stretch considering the PF is f/6.3 while the more expensive $20k glass is f/5.6. A third of a stop? Hardly not caring about apertures. F/11 however is in quite another discussion.


----------



## dolina (Apr 7, 2022)

reef58 said:


> 6 Months ago everyone was covering Nikon with dirt, now they are the greatest since sliced bread. It is fine and dandy to get cheaper gear, but if camera companies don't make enough profit to make it worth while they will throw in the towel. Be careful in hoping for a race to the bottom.
> 
> If is nice to have three major players in the market. Keeps prices in check and innovation ongoing.
> 
> Don't forget Canon has an 800mm lens for less than $1000 since no one cares about f stop anymore.



You make a very valid point for markets where Nikon depends on a 3rd party distributor due to very low volume of sales.

In the Philippines that was the #1 complaint about the previous distributor. This was the same complaint about Sony even when its Sony Philippines handling after sales support.

Historically cameras at these price points generally do not break down easily so even if the camera brand goes belly up it isn't as worrisome as you are projecting it to be. Odds are even if they file for bankruptcy another company would buy them out for their IP and possible sales for the future.

Canon's f/11 lens is 2 stops slower than f/5.6 unlike a 1/3rd stop speed difference. For under $1,000 it is a great value and the price reflects that compromise.

For those who want something faster the Z 800mm is (1) *1/3rd* slower f-stop at (2) *1/3rd* the cost at (3) *1/2* the weight of fastest 800mm lenses.

The f-stop argument is like those comparing a 1988 200/1.8L to a 2008 200/2.0L IS. Owners of both lenses told me that the 1/3rd f-number difference is inconsequential considering (1) 20 years of image sensor sensitivity improvements and (2) multiple stops of Image Stabilization.

After 14 years I think image sensor noise handling would improve to the point that 1/3rd slower isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## jam05 (Apr 7, 2022)

It is no dmn milestone. Nikon came up with this PF lens crap 7 years or so ago. Dont know why CR tries to keep rebirthing this hybrid lens. There is a reason why not all of their lenses are not PF type. They dont sell all that well despite their size. Reduce the amount of glass and replace it with polymers and its bound to be smaller. No rocket science here. Those that care to substitute precious glass with lens flare, have urselves a good time. But dont kid urselves into believing you have anything equivalent to its glass counterparts


----------



## dolina (Apr 7, 2022)

jam05 said:


> It is no dmn milestone. Nikon came up with this PF lens crap 7 years or so ago. Dont know why CR tries to keep rebirthing this hybrid lens. There is a reason why not all of their lenses are not PF type. They dont sell all that well despite their size. Reduce the amount of glass and replace it with polymers and its bound to be smaller. No rocket science here. Those that care to substitute precious glass with lens flare, have urselves a good time. But dont kid urselves into believing you have anything equivalent to its glass counterparts



PF is the Nikon equivalent to Canon's DO.

For many the weight savings that creates a durability that is "good enough" is sufficient for 99% of most buyers of a $6.5k lens.

If ever the first Z 800mm has a catastrophic failure or even gets lost/stolen you'll have money left over for *2 more* Z 800mm.

Those buying this lens aren't looking to go birding in eastern part of Ukraine & if they were then no argument that the RF800mm may be your cup of tea.

Your point of view is equivalent to pushing we buy a military-grade Humvee SUV just to go to the neighboring Costco to do the weekly grocery run. A Subaru Forester SUV would be more than sufficient for this application. Subaru too expensive or dykey? Then go with the Hyundai Kona of 800mm the 800/11 STM.

Nikon under immense pressure to make the Z mirrorless mount a success forced new & unique designs that addresses key concerns for current camera owners looking to upgrade to mirrorless and new buyers who want an easier time taking photos that go beyond people photography.

The only _innovative _mirrorless lens I can recall from Canon so far is the 800/11 and 1200/8. f/11 will get Sigma/Tamron/Tokina buyers to go back to 1st party. The 1200 is your bragging rights lens made accessible to people other than Saudi Oil Money


----------



## dilbert (Apr 7, 2022)

rawshooter said:


> So..is there a Nikon Z to RF adapter with AF?



No. That's no longer possible. That's a part of why Canon & Nikon are stopping old lens development: older lenses don't require their cameras.


----------



## Birdshooter (Apr 7, 2022)

Thanks, to all for this mornings chuckles a whole 5 pages worth of them.

NIKON unless some of you are not paying attention, have lost *numerous *customers to mainly Sony and Canon.
I know in my little circle of the world at least six people that dumped Nikon for Sony. All owners of Nikon supertelephotos.
Those customers are NOT coming back just because Nikon introduces a new lens or a bunch of new lenses.

Carry on....


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> Thanks, to all for this mornings chuckles a whole 5 pages worth of them.
> 
> NIKON unless some of you are not paying attention, have lost *numerous *customers to mainly Sony and Canon.
> I know in my little circle of the world at least six people that dumped Nikon for Sony. All owners of Nikon supertelephotos.
> ...


Yet I've still to meet more than one Sony user. I have met one out of hundreds of photographers and that needed me to actively hunt one down to try out the Sony A1. The numbers of big lens shooters are still 60-40 or maybe 70-30 Canon to Nikon.


----------



## tron (Apr 7, 2022)

I do not know if anyone mentioned the obvious before but the cost difference is less. At least for Canon users who do not have the Z9 and have to buy it too. If there was a version with the F mount I might consider it since I have D500 and D850. Having Canon DSLRs and mirror less and Nikon DSLRs is more than enough for me.


----------



## tarjei99 (Apr 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's a temptation to switch gear every time another manufacturer comes out with something better, but they leapfrog each other. It's taken Nikon 18 months to equal (better in some ways, worse in others) the AF on Canon's cheaper R5, and the Z 800/6.3 will have limited availability for quite some time. In 18 months time, Canon will undoubtedly have a new generation of bodies and new lenses. So jump to Nikon now and then jump again?



Canon does not work that fast. And they are frugal with new lenses. Remember, they still have not produced a new version of the EF 400mm F/5.6. Perhaps the lens is still good enough or would have been too god for the other 400mm lenses. Or improving it would have made it too expensive.

If I didn't have the EF 600 II, I would seriously consider an OM-1 with either a 100-400mm or 150-400mm zoom. It would cost less by far, have up to 800mm equivalent and Capture Pro. It is supposed to be very good on slow motion video, but I don't do video.


----------



## Birdshooter (Apr 7, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Yet I've still to meet more than one Sony user. I have met one out of hundreds of photographers and that needed me to actively hunt one down to try out the Sony A1. The numbers of big lens shooters are still 60-40 or maybe 70-30 Canon to Nikon.


Are you talking about Super telephotos like the 600mm, as in Canada where I live I know a lot, yes a lot of Sony owners with 600mm and many with the Sony 200-600

As a 40+ year Canon user, I can't see the difference when looking at an image if it was taken by a Sony, a Nikon or a Canon super telephoto. LOL


----------



## tarjei99 (Apr 7, 2022)

Bonich said:


> I bunkered the money to get a state of the art big white as described for years now:
> - switchable TC integrated
> - light
> - great IQ
> ...




You could have gone for the EF 200-400 F/4 with a built in teleconverter. Not an RF lens, so what!


----------



## tarjei99 (Apr 7, 2022)

northlarch said:


> I guess we can’t all be as wealthy and successful as you. I’ve spent about $35k on the RF system thus far and that’s a lot of money for me. I’m self-employed in the middle of a global pandemic and make my entire living off of wildlife photography. So yeah, if you’re asking me if $13,500 extra in my pocket is greener grass, going with Nikon’s 800 over Canon’s, I’d say yes…call me crazy. I’d argue the blind loyalty is more expensive.



Then you should consider Micro Four Thirds cameras. A 400mm is equivalent to 800mm and is a lot cheaper than even the Nikon is. I see that there are more than one zoom which end at 400mm.

I have my EF-600 II, so I am not in the market for a new long tele. If I was, I doubt that I would go with any of the big 3.

I was thinking about the OM-1 and the 150-400mm zoom, but decided that I will have to soldier on with the the EF-600. However, I keep thinking of a zoom 300-800mm equivalent. It is tempting.

If I was a professional wildlife photographer, I would probably have to go with the OM-1 anyway due to its video capabilities.


----------



## dolina (Apr 7, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> Thanks, to all for this mornings chuckles a whole 5 pages worth of them.
> 
> NIKON unless some of you are not paying attention, have lost *numerous *customers to mainly Sony and Canon.
> I know in my little circle of the world at least six people that dumped Nikon for Sony. All owners of Nikon supertelephotos.
> ...



Did you ask why the F mount DSLR users sold their Nikons for a Sony or Canon at the time they sold theirs?


----------



## tarjei99 (Apr 7, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Yes, the Olympus 100-400 is not a "PRO" lens, nor a fast lens, so you could choose the Olympus 300mm f/4 (equivament 600mm reach) instead. Adding a 1.4 teleconverter will get you over 800mm and it will still be less than half the price of the Nikon 800mm PF (about $3200 for the lens and 1.4 TC) and about 700 grams lighter. Yes, these MFT alternatives will give you higher equivalent F stops resulting in less bokeh and more noise. For me, the advantages of cost, size and weight far outweigh the disadvantages. Most of my BIF shots are against blue skies or backgrounds considerably far away, that bokeh is not an issue. Noise reduction programs like Topaz and others, make any additional noise (usually rather minor compared to my FF camera) a non-issue.



The pro version of that zoom is the 150-400 F/4.5 with a built in 1.25 teleconverter.

If I didn't already have more EF glass than I can carry, I would consider the OM-1.


----------



## danfaz (Apr 7, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Canon has it in the M6 II (?), but can't understand why it's not in the R5, R6 or R3. (or is it? If it is, please let me and everyone else know.)



Yes, the M6 II has this feature. It's quite a cool feature. Not sure why it's not in any of the R series cameras.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2022)

Birdshooter said:


> Are you talking about Super telephotos like the 600mm, as in Canada where I live I know a lot, yes a lot of Sony owners with 600mm and many with the Sony 200-600
> 
> As a 40+ year Canon user, I can't see the difference when looking at an image if it was taken by a Sony, a Nikon or a Canon super telephoto. LOL


I am sure Sony users exist out there, but I had to hunt one down. Out of the hundreds of shooters I know, it took a lot of effort to find someone with a Sony. This is regardless of if they are wildlife, wedding, or events shooters. The most common wedding kit I see are Nikon Z6, D850 or Canon 5D iii/iv with the odd R6.


----------



## MartinVLC (Apr 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unless people actually vote with their wallets and not just ‘on paper’, Canon won’t care. Nor should they.
> 
> My guess is that most people who post something like this:
> 
> …are irrelevant because they don’t have even the price of the Nikon 800/6.3, much less the price of the RF 800/5.6, to spend on camera gear.


How sympathatic ;-). And I didn´t know that you know my finances better than I do.


----------



## ohm (Apr 7, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> In India its quite opposite, Canon prices are on par with USD or sometimes even lower(after adjusting for taxes). I thinks more of Canon UK or UK itself who might be at fault.


Sadly, Canon Japan is more expensive than the USA, and while not as expensive as Canon Europe, sits between them despite much of the production being done here, and the company being founded and headquartered here. It used to be the opposite. But as with all things global, the home people are hit the hardest as the company focuses outward.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> $6.5k 800mm f/6.3 at less than 2.39kg. Making this weighing at the middle of a EF300/2.8 IS II & EF200/2.0 IS
> 
> It's (1) *1/3rd* the cost at (2) *1/3rd* slower f-stop at (3) *1/2* the weight of faster 800mm lenses.
> 
> ...



What's more, if Nikon have come up with a new way to manufacture the big tele zooms that doesn't compromise on IQ, then the 800/6.3 is just the first, a shot over the bow so to speak.

If Nikon can deliver the same for 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm, all at similar cost savings to the photographer, they're going to become a very popular camera manufacturer.

Who's up for a 300/3.2 that's 1/3 of the price of a 300/2.8 but has similar IQ?


----------



## dilbert (Apr 7, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Cheap because it a PF lense and most likely a lot of plastic molded on to the glass. However Nikon's PF lenses have traditionally come with a great deal of lens flare that had to be dealt with using work arounds. You get what you pay for. If you can deal with lens flare, go for it. Its a deal breaker for many.



Are you saying that Michael Bay will love these lenses?


----------



## AlanF (Apr 7, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Yet I've still to meet more than one Sony user. I have met one out of hundreds of photographers and that needed me to actively hunt one down to try out the Sony A1. The numbers of big lens shooters are still 60-40 or maybe 70-30 Canon to Nikon.


Internet forums are full of Sony users, and some of them the very best bird photographers around. But, like you, I hardly ever see one on my regular birding outings, less than 1%, and see similar ratios to you of about 70:30 or 80:20 Canon to Nikon. And most of them have 100-400 Canons or 150-600 Sigmas or Tamrons. Maybe, we just live in a poor part of the world, and it's a different balance in the USA and Canada. The 500 PF is popular with the Nikon crowd, and despite what jam05 writes, a damn good lens.


----------



## dolina (Apr 7, 2022)

dilbert said:


> What's more, if Nikon have come up with a new way to manufacture the big tele zooms that doesn't compromise on IQ, then the 800/6.3 is just the first, a shot over the bow so to speak.
> 
> If Nikon can deliver the same for 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm, all at similar cost savings to the photographer, they're going to become a very popular camera manufacturer.
> 
> Who's up for a 300/3.2 that's 1/3 of the price of a 300/2.8 but has similar IQ?


I saw 1 screen shot of that Z 800mm lens being "Made in China".

I am confident that the lens will be up to Nikon Japan quality standards.

But my dream long fast lens would be one with built-in 1.4x & 2.0x TC


----------



## tapanit (Apr 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> No, it's Canon EU. Canon UK aplogised to me (as I have posted previously a couple of times) that they charge what Canon EU dictates.


Why are they more expensive in the UK than in (many) EU countries, then?

Comparing to Finland, I find that UK prices are usually 10-15% higher (excluding taxes). And Finland is not generally cheap compared to, for example, Germany.

Of course USA is much cheaper still.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 7, 2022)

tapanit said:


> Why are they more expensive in the UK than in (many) EU countries, then?
> 
> Comparing to Finland, I find that UK prices are usually 10-15% higher (excluding taxes). And Finland is not generally cheap compared to, for example, Germany.
> 
> Of course USA is much cheaper still.


Because Canon Europe charges us 11% more to make more money. They have to charge the same price in every EU country. Norway is also charged more, I believe from our members.


----------



## tapanit (Apr 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Because Canon Europe charges us 11% more to make more money. They have to charge the same price in every EU country. Norway is also charged more, I believe from our members.


In case you didn't know, Finland is in the EU. So is Germany.


----------



## djack41 (Apr 7, 2022)

Sadly, the light weight of the new Nikon 800mm is offset by the excessively heavy Z9. The Canon R3 is a brilliantly light weight pro-body. Canon's new 800mm and 1200mm lenses are sad jokes.


----------



## dolina (Apr 7, 2022)

djack41 said:


> Sadly, the light weight of the new Nikon 800mm is offset by the excessively heavy Z9. The Canon R3 is a brilliantly light weight pro-body. Canon's new 800mm and 1200mm lenses are sad jokes.


If 1340g is excessive then I'm interested to know your description of belly fat?


----------



## Bonich (Apr 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> There’s zero evidence Canon is in any sort of trouble. They currently dominate the ILC market, Sony is second, Nikon is well back in third.
> 
> 
> How many people is ‘so many’? Also, ‘thinking about getting’ something is meaningless. Car forums are full of people ‘thinking about getting’ Ferraris and Porsches. Mostly, they dream and specurbate and if they buy anything, it’s a Toyota or a Ford.
> ...


No, not too many sports photographers are shooting 800.
But Nikon's 400 2.8 with built in TC is the thing needed for sports (and wildlife).
It will sell by far better than the Canon 800 & 1200 combined.
- And Nikon will sell a very nice number of the 800 PF on top.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 7, 2022)

tapanit said:


> In case you didn't know, Finland is in the EU. So is Germany.


I wrote they charge the same in every EU country. In case you didn't understand that, that is why they charge the same in Germany and Finland. They charge us and Norway more because we are not in the EU, or perhaps you didn't know that.



AlanF said:


> Because Canon Europe charges us 11% more to make more money. They have to charge the same price in every EU country. Norway is also charged more, I believe from our members.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> If 1340g is excessive then I'm interested to know your description of belly fat?


He probably doesn't add 600g of belly fat on top of his camera and hold it at eye level. Seriously, some people can hand hold a 600mm f/4 with ease, and most of us don't notice an extra 600g in a back pack, but for some of us, an extra few 100g held at arms length is too much.


----------



## Bonich (Apr 7, 2022)

tarjei99 said:


> You could have gone for the EF 200-400 F/4 with a built in teleconverter. Not an RF lens, so what!


I use the 200-400 since years now.
A very impressive lens with top IQ.

But this lens is very heavy - and it is 400 f4. I would like to go 2.8 for the next step.
There is no Canon option so far, but a Nikon option.


----------



## Bonich (Apr 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> I saw 1 screen shot of that Z 800mm lens being "Made in China".
> 
> I am confident that the lens will be up to Nikon Japan quality standards.
> 
> But my dream long fast lens would be one with built-in 1.4x & 2.0x TC


Forget the 2x, but the built in 1.4x is more than great (after enjoying shooting EF 200-400 with internal switchable extender for half a decade now.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> I saw 1 screen shot of that Z 800mm lens being "Made in China".
> 
> I am confident that the lens will be up to Nikon Japan quality standards.
> 
> But my dream long fast lens would be one with built-in 1.4x & 2.0x TC


It is made to Nikon's specs so I don't care if it is hand crafted in Japan by seasoned experts or on a fully automated production line in Thailand or China. Only the 400 f/2.8 TC Z lens is built in Japan just now.. but all the other Z lenses are much better than their F counterparts and mostly made in Thailand with one or two in China.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Apr 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> There’s zero evidence Canon is in any sort of trouble. They currently dominate the ILC market, Sony is second, Nikon is well back in third.


Well, sales statistics are about sales which have already been made. True, Canon is doing well and according to their "read of the statistic" they are No. 1 although Sony claims they are No. 1. So, number they are not in trouble (yet) 

But anybody, who is not blindly brand loyal boarding on stupidity and who just a tini tiny bit familiar with business psychology and the camera industry, will see that Nikons pricing will put a lot of pressure on canon. And with a price point difference which is so big that it will allow people top buy into Nikon Z-mount with a flagship camera and two lenses (one at least top-tier caliber; don't know about the 800mm yet) AND save money compared to Canons offering, it would be pretty naiv to think that it won't pressure Canon. Canon has to be extremely cautions how they are going about this or they'll lose customers. So far, their RF pricing has been to put a 40% (and more) markup on everything...


neuroanatomist said:


> How many people is ‘so many’? Also, ‘thinking about getting’ something is meaningless. Car forums are full of people ‘thinking about getting’ Ferraris and Porsches. Mostly, they dream and specurbate and if they buy anything, it’s a Toyota or a Ford.


Well, I honestly didn't count. Camera forums not only visited by dreamers who state "XY is my dream lense", also by serious photographers. There are a few German website were actually show their business in their profile such as wedding photographers and such. And they do think about their equipment/ future acquisitions and such. 

And hey, there actually are a lot of "dreamers" who buy a Porsche one day. Ever heard of mid-life crises purchases or people pursuing a life-long dream to get product XYZ... 



neuroanatomist said:


> Do you think a lot of sports photographers, like those shooting soccer games, are using 800mm lenses?


Nope, I don't think that. My point was meant to be different and I didn't explain it correctly. My mistake. 
What I meant was: Even pro soccer photographers think about budget constraints ALL the time and don't spent extra if they find a cheaper, almost equivalent option. I only chose soccer to illustrate this as an example because it is the sport with the most money involved. Due to worldwide press articles and photos been published everyday and everywhere, you can earn a lot more money than for example shooting pics at a Handball Game in Germany. 


neuroanatomist said:


> Regardless, thanks for supporting my point, even though I know that wasn’t your intent. Budgets _are_ tight and the professional photography market is suffering. That means current pro photographers, who already have gear they’re using, are much less likely to buy _any_ expensive new lenses, whether they cost $6K or $16K.


This is were we disagree: 
If you say that pro photographers are less likely to "buy any expensive" new lense, it actually does mean as well: And if they do, it'll be the $6K lense... 

And as you stated: the market (and income) is suffering, photographers are holding on to their longer as usual. These facts will drive photographer in getting the 6K Nikon lense instead of Canons offering. In fact, it will means: every company will sell fewer lenses, but Canon sales will be hurt the most given the extreme price difference...


----------



## AlanF (Apr 7, 2022)

I wonder how many ever bought the EF 800mm f/5.6? @dolina on CR has one but I've forgotten or missed who else has. It has been pretty much a niche lens for a few real experts. Maybe it was because of the serious pricing and Nikon will make it much more popular. But, it is still a fairly specialised focal length.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Internet forums are full of Sony users, and some of them the very best bird photographers around. But, like you, I hardly ever see one on my regular birding outings, less than 1%, and see similar ratios to you of about 70:30 or 80:20 Canon to Nikon. And most of them have 100-400 Canons or 150-600 Sigmas or Tamrons. Maybe, we just live in a poor part of the world, and it's a different balance in the USA and Canada. The 500 PF is popular with the Nikon crowd, and despite what jam05 writes, a damn good lens.


Oddly, I see much more Nikon than Canon around here. I was surprised when I first learned here that Nikon's (worldwide) market share was so low.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I wonder how many ever bought the EF 800mm f/5.6? @dolina on CR has one but I've forgotten or missed who else has. It has been pretty much a niche lens for a few real experts. Maybe it was because of the serious pricing and Nikon will make it much more popular. But, it is still a fairly specialised focal length.


I appreciate that @dolina recognizes he’s in a niche group, unlike the members here who seem to think they are representative of a large swath of the market.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I wonder how many ever bought the EF 800mm f/5.6? @dolina on CR has one but I've forgotten or missed who else has. It has been pretty much a niche lens for a few real experts. Maybe it was because of the serious pricing and Nikon will make it much more popular. But, it is still a fairly specialised focal length.


The Canon EF 800 f/5.6 was one to avoid as the 600 II gets you a sharper image with the 1.4x. The Nikon 800 was one to rent when you knew you needed it and could carry it to the right location.

The new Nikon 800 is looking like it can replace the 600 + 1.4x that many birders resort too but in a smaller package that you can get down with lower than your tripod and still get a sharp image at 1/320s.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 7, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> The Canon EF 800 f/5.6 was one to avoid as the 600 II gets you a sharper image with the 1.4x. The Nikon 800 was one to rent when you knew you needed it and could carry it to the right location.
> 
> The new Nikon 800 is looking like it can replace the 600 + 1.4x that many birders resort too but in a smaller package that you can get down with lower than your tripod and still get a sharp image at 1/320s.


You may well be right, and its price is a key factor.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You may well be right, and its price is a key factor.


Weight was a bigger factor for me personally. I was fully prepared to pay well over £10,000 for the 800mm as I had based my savings on the cost of the Canon and the preceding Nikon 800mm. I could have even imagined paying more for the lighter weight. This is a 800mm that I can take with my 100-400 and 105 macro in one backpack for a long treks into the middle of nowhere.


----------



## Czardoom (Apr 7, 2022)

tarjei99 said:


> The pro version of that zoom is the 150-400 F/4.5 with a built in 1.25 teleconverter.
> 
> If I didn't already have more EF glass than I can carry, I would consider the OM-1.


Yes, I tend not to think of that Pro lens as it is way beyond my price range - but if I had the funds to consider a wildlife/birding lens that cost over $6,000, The Olympus 150-400 would be a no-brainer. As I said, the Nikon 800 PF is no doubt a great lens (and early reviews seem to back this up) - and I briefly owned the 300mm PF, so have experienced the very high quality of Nikon's PF lenses, but a zoom is so much more versatile and easier to use. The Olympus is $1,000 more, but it's 500g lighter and 70mm shorter.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Apr 8, 2022)

This lens looks like it will be great for Nikon users. Along with their other PF lenses they have some great "lighter" options for nature photography at a pretty reasonable price. So far the only camera from Nikon that is good for the same purpose in my eyes is the Z9 but I would prefer a much smaller body like the R5 or A1. 

I really hope this gets Canon back working on their DO lenses (the 400 II was really quite good) or Sony gets in on the game. At some point I'm likely to move on from the 500 f/4 EF lens but I will probably wait to see if either Canon or Sony step up with some similar PF (DO) type lenses. For now I'll stick with the 500 on the Canon and the 200-600 on the Sony. 

A lighter 800 would be pretty sweet....I most often use the 500 with the 1.4 teleconverter, this was shot today with that combo.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 8, 2022)

I know it's petty but it still makes me cringe. 

There is no such word as 'lense' 

Now then, this statement will not change some folks and I will accept that as I also have many flaws myself...spelling the word *lens* incorrectly on a photography forum not being one of them. Pointing out others mistakes, yes...I need to work on that.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> I know it's petty but it still makes me cringe.
> 
> There is no such word as 'lense'
> 
> Now then, this statement will not change some folks and I will accept that as I also have many flaws myself...spelling the word *lens* incorrectly on a photography forum not being one of them. Pointing out others mistakes, yes...I need to work on that.


German for lens is linse and so our German members sometimes make that small spelling mistake. Their English is usually so good you won’t otherwise know it is not their mother tongue.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> German for lens is linse and so our German members sometimes make that small spelling mistake. Their English is usually so good you won’t otherwise know it is not their mother tongue.


Ok, you get der pass


----------



## tapanit (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I wrote they charge the same in every EU country. In case you didn't understand that, that is why they charge the same in Germany and Finland. They charge us and Norway more because we are not in the EU, or perhaps you didn't know that.


OK, I misunderstood you. But that explanation doesn't make any sense. Other countries outside EU are also cheaper than the UK and Norway.


----------



## CrPr (Apr 8, 2022)

stochasticmotions said:


> This lens looks like it will be great for Nikon users. Along with their other PF lenses they have some great "lighter" options for nature photography at a pretty reasonable price. So far the only camera from Nikon that is good for the same purpose in my eyes is the Z9 but I would prefer a much smaller body like the R5 or A1.
> 
> I really hope this gets Canon back working on their DO lenses (the 400 II was really quite good) or Sony gets in on the game. At some point I'm likely to move on from the 500 f/4 EF lens but I will probably wait to see if either Canon or Sony step up with some similar PF (DO) type lenses. For now I'll stick with the 500 on the Canon and the 200-600 on the Sony.
> 
> ...


Agree with you - great shot, congrats. Ím currently using the 400 DO II (with both extenders) on a R5 For most of my wildlife work. Image quality can only described as exeptional also with the extenders. Handling, stabilization and AF are outstanding as well - allowing even for some free hand bird videos with 800 mm …. This combination offers 3 important focal lengths for nature photography (400, 560, 800) with comparable size and weight compared to the new (interesting) Nikon lens. Thus, until Canon offeres one or more RF-DO lenses I´ll stick with my lenses (plus the really good RF 100-500 as well) and enjoy all the features of the lightweight and versatile R5.


----------



## ISv (Apr 8, 2022)

jam05 said:


> It is no dmn milestone. Nikon came up with this PF lens crap 7 years or so ago. Dont know why CR tries to keep rebirthing this hybrid lens. There is a reason why not all of their lenses are not PF type. They dont sell all that well despite their size. Reduce the amount of glass and replace it with polymers and its bound to be smaller. No rocket science here. Those that care to substitute precious glass with lens flare, have urselves a good time. But dont kid urselves into believing you have anything equivalent to its glass counterparts


!


----------



## northlarch (Apr 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I appreciate that @dolina recognizes he’s in a niche group, unlike the members here who seem to think they are representative of a large swath of the market.


Seems like a thinly veiled comment at me from our previous discussion, so I’ll bite. You never responded to my last comment about the wildlife/sports/PJs buyers and instead chose to drop this little jab. We buy mostly the same gear so for you to discount the wildlife community as a niche group that doesn’t really account for much is akin to saying all of these types of shooters who buy the top-tier products (wildlife/sports/PJs) are a niche group. Every top of the line body with the fastest specs, all the high-end telephoto lenses used in these genres—all for niche users that don’t account for much according to your logic. It’s just flat out silly. Sure, they probably sell a larger quantity of wide lenses like you mentioned, but the margins are also a lot less. They wouldn’t be targeting wildlife/sports/PJs with the best, pro bodies and lenses if it was a niche group they didn’t make a significant amount of money from. Fewer quantity of higher priced goods with better margins. It’s a big deal for them. Not sure how you’re even trying to argue this, honestly.


----------



## ISv (Apr 8, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Ok, you get der pass


What language it is? In German you have to start with "Jawohl ..."!


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2022)

tapanit said:


> OK, I misunderstood you. But that explanation doesn't make any sense. Other countries outside EU are also cheaper than the UK and Norway.


I wrote that the price in the UK is decided by Canon Europe. Countries like India, China and Australia are not in Europe and their pricing is decided by other sectors of Canon. Different regions have different pricing and that is how there are cheap grey market imports.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 8, 2022)

ISv said:


> What language it is? In German you have to start with "Jawohl ..."!


Is it kind of a Schwyzerdütsch?
Grüezi mittenand!


----------



## mariosk1gr (Apr 8, 2022)

I cannot understand Canon's marketing policy. From one hand they enter to milc world with innovative lenses such as 28-70, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 including DS version and others and from the other hand they stuck on old patterns with super telephoto lenses! Don't they understand that?


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 8, 2022)

No company, not even Canon, could have developed from scratch a full new line of cameras and lenses from the widest WA to the longest tele, and this for a shrinking market.
So, they had to make a choice, whether to "recycle" EF lenses or to let customers wait a few more years to get brand-new designs. This, with regard to the strong competition they are facing, they couldn't do.
It may seem unsatisfactory, but it was reasonable.
Be patient...


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2022)

You can get some idea of relative lens sales from this amazing site that catalogues Nikon serial numbers http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html . The 800/5.6 VR has sold only about 3,500 copies since 2013. The latest 600mm f/4 6, 6,900 since 2015, the 500/4 3900 since 2015 and the 400/2.8, 4,200 since 2014. The consumer 200-500, 225,000, give or take, since 2015. The 80-400 f/5.6, about 88,000 since 2013, and the 500mm f/5.6 27,000 since 2018. The "professional" big blacks are only very roughly 5% of those sales.

Maybe Canon does know where the sales are - those long expensive primes are niche products in the telephoto and supertelephoto categories and miniscule in the total lens sales. (I'd be surprised if the $6000 800/6.3 sells more than the $3000 500/5.6 PF).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You can get some idea of relative lens sales from this amazing site that catalogues Nikon serial numbers http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html . The 800/5.6 VR has sold only about 3,500 copies since 2013. The latest 600mm f/4 6, 6,900 since 2015, the 500/4 3900 since 2015 and the 400/2.8, 4,200 since 2014. The consumer 200-500, 225,000, give or take, since 2015. The 80-400 f/5.6, about 88,000 since 2013, and the 500mm f/5.6 27,000 since 2018. The "professional" big blacks are only very roughly 5% of those sales.
> 
> Maybe Canon does know where the sales are - those long expensive primes are niche products in the telephoto and supertelephoto categories and miniscule in the total lens sales.


By the data presented and your own comment about where sales are. It looks like Nikon knows where the sales are too, making much more affordable PF super tele lenses and 200-500 consumer lenses as a priority instead of £20k lenses. According to the numbers posted here people do need/want a 500mm lens, they just don't want a £10,000 f/4.0 one or could never justify that cost. Canon should get out a small range of DO lenses and something to take on the 200-500/600.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I wonder how many ever bought the EF 800mm f/5.6? @dolina on CR has one but I've forgotten or missed who else has. It has been pretty much a niche lens for a few real experts. Maybe it was because of the serious pricing and Nikon will make it much more popular. But, it is still a fairly specialised focal length.


I think Canon was able to sell enough to make it profitable. 

It's back-ordered at BH until today even when multiple 600/4 versions have since been released in 2011, 2018 & 2021 and the 2020 & 2022 RF800mm has been announced.

One way to determine the number of lenses or products have been released is to ask a forum who among their members bought theirs brand new within the last 1 to 12 months and share a somewhat accurate serial #. This was done for the 200/1.8 by asking who had the highest value serial # but I am having difficulty finding the site with this figure.

Here's the Lens Gallery of the Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM with other CR users posting their photos from EF800mm. FM & POTN has their own EF800mm photo threads as well by roughly the same set of people.

For those under 50 the over $6.5k price point held back purchase while for the over 50 its the over 2.4kg + misc weight.

With the Z 800mm 6.3 it addresses all those concerns. For the birding group this will be a very popular lens and will push down the price points of older 800mm 5.6 lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sigma to $5k or lower.

In the Philippines I count about at least 3 users between 2008-2015. I'm the youngest and longest using user of this lens model.

If after sales support was not a factor in where you live I'd push for the Z 800mm. If I was 60 & older I'd buy that and keep it up to 85 and beyond.

Not to scare anyone but I now recall how critical after sales support is. Back in 2012 a service notice involving the the 200/2 & 800/5.6 was issued. As I never bought the 2012 5D3 I never had my 800 looked over until the 2015 5Ds R was released. Thankfully by then the next 2 users of the 800 had their Image Stabalizers replaced so the lens tech who upgraded mine had experience doing the upgrade.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> The Canon EF 800 f/5.6 was one to avoid as the 600 II gets you a sharper image with the 1.4x. The Nikon 800 was one to rent when you knew you needed it and could carry it to the right location.
> 
> The new Nikon 800 is looking like it can replace the 600 + 1.4x that many birders resort too but in a smaller package that you can get down with lower than your tripod and still get a sharp image at 1/320s.



Among the 3 other 800 users in the Philippines from 2008-2015 I know one of them sold theirs for a 600 IS II while the other one kept their 800.

If I was buying a birding lens from those 2 years I may be tempted to go with your way of thinking for weight reduction. The F 800mm VR is more than 4.5kg and is more expensive. So unless you're on the F mount I wouldn't bother with it.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

mariosk1gr said:


> I cannot understand Canon's marketing policy. From one hand they enter to milc world with innovative lenses such as 28-70, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 including DS version and others and from the other hand they stuck on old patterns with super telephoto lenses! Don't they understand that?


Could be internal inertia or what their market surveys tells them.

Many photographers forget the relationship between f-number and lens weight when it comes to long focal lengths. I recall one instance a film photographer who does mostly people photos asking why Canon would offer such a "slow" f/5.6 lens for a 800mm. I even found one CR thread asking about a 800mm f/4.0 being a future product.

Something similar can be read on this thread when some users consider f/6.3 is too "slow".

Sigma & Tamron's 600/6.3 super zooms of the past decade proves that there is a largely ignored market by Canon/Nikon. With improvements in camera body AF & ISO sensitivity a "slow" lens isn't that much of an issue anymore.

I know this is none of my business and this is not intended to offend but if you are considering getting into birding or wildelife photography consider your status in life. If you're 40 & below, without a partner/spouse & without kids but want to get married and have kids then prioritize that first.

The birds & wildlife can wait until you're 60 & above or better yet 70 & above ideally doing this activity with your love in life. A CIPA market research on who buys birding & wildlife gear aligns with that. Just don't ask me to look for it. I read about it half a decade ago.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> I think Canon was able to sell enough to make it profitable.
> 
> It's back-ordered at BH until today even when multiple 600/4 versions have since been released in 2011, 2018 & 2021 and the 2020 & 2022 RF800mm has been announced.


The EF 800 has officially been discontinued by Canon https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/old-products.html


dolina said:


> One way to determine the number of lenses or products have been released is to ask a forum who among their members bought theirs brand new within the last 1 to 12 months and share a somewhat accurate serial #. This was done for the 200/1.8 by asking who had the highest value serial # but I am having difficulty finding the site with this figure.


I am not sure whether it is easy to analyse Canon serial numbers in the same way as they include location and other data in them. Perhaps someone more expert could advise.


dolina said:


> If after sales support was not a factor in where you live I'd push for the Z 800mm. If I was 60 & older I'd buy that and keep it up to 85 and beyond.


I wish you all good health in reaching 85 and being able to handle the lens!


dolina said:


> I know this is none of my business and this is not intended to offend but if you are considering getting into birding or wildelife photography consider your status in life. If you're 40 & below, without a partner/spouse & without kids but want to get married and have kids then prioritize that first.
> 
> The birds & wildlife can wait until you're 60 & above or better yet 70 & above ideally doing this activity with your love in life. A CIPA market research on who buys birding & wildlife gear aligns with that. Just don't ask me to look for it. I read about it half a decade ago.


Agreed! Just what I have done.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Seems like a thinly veiled comment at me from our previous discussion, so I’ll bite. You never responded to my last comment about the wildlife/sports/PJs buyers and instead chose to drop this little jab. We buy mostly the same gear so for you to discount the wildlife community as a niche group that doesn’t really account for much is akin to saying all of these types of shooters who buy the top-tier products (wildlife/sports/PJs) are a niche group. Every top of the line body with the fastest specs, all the high-end telephoto lenses used in these genres—all for niche users that don’t account for much according to your logic. It’s just flat out silly. Sure, they probably sell a larger quantity of wide lenses like you mentioned, but the margins are also a lot less. They wouldn’t be targeting wildlife/sports/PJs with the best, pro bodies and lenses if it was a niche group they didn’t make a significant amount of money from. Fewer quantity of higher priced goods with better margins. It’s a big deal for them. Not sure how you’re even trying to argue this, honestly.



Personally I wouldn't take offense to the word "niche". 

~99% of all photography done globally is about people so what I've been doing for over 13 years is really niche.

How else to explain the rapid decline of the digital still camera market in the last 10 years? 

~99% of all use cases are sufficiently covered by smartphones like Galaxy & iPhone.

Many are unwilling to spend more $2k or even $3k for any lens much lens a prime lens.

If I was smarter when I was under 40 I'd only stick to older equivalents of these hardware & buy the ones below this year.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM
Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L IS USM 
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM
Canon EOS R5
Canon/Nikon/Sony are doing business in niche segment as they know there's money to be made with a better margin. They also buy on a predictable schedule.

Photonews agencies align their scheduled purchases of new hardware within 12 months of the next Olympics, World Cup or other major sporting events. They typically buy in the dozens so what they want next in the next lens, flash or body is R&D to their specifications.

After them its world govts who need it for law enforcement, military, etc. They may buy less on a schedule but almost as large a quantity.

After orgs and govts the next priority market would be working photographers and eventually hobbyists like me.

I learned about this through discussions with working photojournalists, sports photo journalists, other professionals and maket research easily read on websites, PDF and youtube.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon's MTF curves aren't corrected for diffraction whereas Canon's are, which is the major reason why Nikon's look so much better. I couldn't find the uncorrected MTFs for the EF 800mm f/5.6, but here are the uncorrected and corrected for the EF 600mm f/4 II to show the huge difference. The difference will be greater for f/6.3.
> 
> View attachment 202999
> View attachment 203001


MTF charts are just all over the place even between lenses from the same company.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The EF 800 has officially been discontinued by Canon https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/old-products.html
> 
> I am not sure whether it is easy to analyse Canon serial numbers in the same way as they include location and other data in them. Perhaps someone more expert could advise.
> 
> ...


Are all the lens in that Canon.jp link a one time update? If it is then it should be aligned with the announcement of the discontinuation of the 200/2.0 13 months ago.

Changes in Canon serial # took affect fairly recently.

Z 800mm isn't in my timeline as I have not used the EF800mm in almost a decade. Liquidating it should have been my priority a dozen years ago or before COVID became a thing more than 2 years ago.

I'd prefer to have a wife with a number of kids the wife wants.

I only speak for the Z 800mm as I'm a gear head.  Its fun talking about them toys as an intellectual activity especially when prospective buyers do not not understand the importance of (1) gear you're willing to carry and gear you leave in the dry cabinet, (2) why the Z 800mm is "cheap" and (3) losing 1/3rd a stop is not that important with IBIS, lens IS and mind bending ISO sensitivity from 2020s tech that induced by 3rd party advances in smartphone camera tech.

If I could do a redo I may have taken up birding in the 2040s or 2050s assuming I have not met so many notable a-holes in the birding community during the 2010s.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Seems like a thinly veiled comment at me from our previous discussion, so I’ll bite. You never responded to my last comment about the wildlife/sports/PJs buyers and instead chose to drop this little jab. We buy mostly the same gear so for you to discount the wildlife community as a niche group that doesn’t really account for much is akin to saying all of these types of shooters who buy the top-tier products (wildlife/sports/PJs) are a niche group. Every top of the line body with the fastest specs, all the high-end telephoto lenses used in these genres—all for niche users that don’t account for much according to your logic. It’s just flat out silly. Sure, they probably sell a larger quantity of wide lenses like you mentioned, but the margins are also a lot less. They wouldn’t be targeting wildlife/sports/PJs with the best, pro bodies and lenses if it was a niche group they didn’t make a significant amount of money from. Fewer quantity of higher priced goods with better margins. It’s a big deal for them. Not sure how you’re even trying to argue this, honestly.


See the numbers in the post by @AlanF.

I know I’m a niche buyer. Some people cannot be convinced of their own lack of importance in the larger picture. To be clear, that’s also a thinly veiled comment directed at you. 

Note that niche doesn’t mean unimportant. Companies can and do focus on niche markets. I think it makes sense for Nikon to do so. They used to have a much larger market share than they do now. They’ve lost out to Canon and Sony. Sony did the same a decade ago when shifting to FF MILC. Sure, you could argue that they were prescient. But it’s no coincidence that they launched FF MILCs the same year Canon entered the MILC market. When the 800 lb gorilla enters your room, leaving is a good idea.

Leica has never gone after the majority market. Rich hipsters are a viable niche for them. I remember Nikon tried breaking into that one with the Df. Didn’t work for them.

Nikon used to hold around 40% of the ILC market. Now their share is well under 20%. Clearly they need to try something different.

As for margins, the RF lenses seem to focus on that. The production costs for lenses like the 14-35/4 and 70-200/2.8 are probably not much higher that the EF lenses they replace. The MSRPs are much higher. Pure profit for Canon.

Your suggestion that Canon ‘rushed to meet the demands of the high-end wildlife crowd’ doesn’t really hold up. They expended marginal effort. They redesigned the 400/2.8 and 600/4 as EF lenses. Then they turned those two new lenses into four expensive RF lenses by bolting an adapter or a TC+adapter. That’s not a focus, that’s a very limited effort. The novel designs are the 600/11 and 800/11, and the 100-400 non-L, all of which indicate a focus on the consumer market. Not on us. I’m fine with that. Seems you’re not. Deal.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I wrote that the price in the UK is decided by Canon Europe. Countries like India, China and Australia are not in Europe and their pricing is decided by other sectors of Canon. Different regions have different pricing and that is how there are cheap grey market imports.


Long live cheap grey market imports!

Beats me why so many people pay a crazy £4299 to get an R5 from Canon UK, when you can get a grey imports for £3040 with a 3 year warranty!


----------



## 2 cents (Apr 8, 2022)

I hope that Nikon and Sony keep on biting at Canon's feet. We need competition. 

Been using Canon for over 30 years and the only gripe I ever had was when they dropped the DEP mode that was on early AF models. Loved that mode. Since this R system and RF lenses, I've been really cross. I have an ageing 5DMk4 that want to replace but the R5 I got is just way too uncomfortable for my work, and eats batteries like there is no tomorrow. EF is dead so no point looking there. Prices are just offensive and for the first time ever, I'm looking forward for Sigma once they decide to offer something.

Good to see Nikon showing a way forward, hopefully Canon will take a hint. Nikon was once the king for pro photographers after all.


----------



## 2 cents (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's a temptation to switch gear every time another manufacturer comes out with something better, but they leapfrog each other. It's taken Nikon 18 months to equal (better in some ways, worse in others) the AF on Canon's cheaper R5, and the Z 800/6.3 will have limited availability for quite some time. In 18 months time, Canon will undoubtedly have a new generation of bodies and new lenses. So jump to Nikon now and then jump again?


Yeah Canon will have a new generation, at even higher prices. I'm a pro photographer, and can't justify these prices in my market. I simply can't.


----------



## 2 cents (Apr 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Long live cheap grey market imports!
> 
> Beats me why so many people pay a crazy £4299 to get an R5 from Canon UK, when you can get a grey imports for £3040 with a 3 year warranty!


That's still an insane amount of money for a camera that will be last generation in a couple of years.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Prices are just offensive and for the first time ever, I'm looking forward for Sigma once they decide to offer something.


*Edit: *

After some thought I removed the "Total point & shoot, SLR & Mirrorless" graph and replaced it with this new one that only shows Total SLRs & mirroless cameras shipped as they're the focus Canon Rumors.

Doing this shows that year 2021 shipment numbers of SLR & mirrorless bodies is now closer to year 2006 shipments. I would hazard a guess that crop sensor SLRs like Canon's Rebel shrunk the most while sales volume of full frame bodies remained largely unaffected.







Below the years are the cameras/phones year of introduction to give you context what that year meant in photography.

With economies of scale declining expect a lot of further consolidation among companies or gear doubling in price to their 1 decade ago equivalents.

The focus being differentiating their cameras enough from iPhone & Android


----------



## 2 cents (Apr 8, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> We'll only see a change in Canon's pricing policy if enough NEW (pro) customers decide in favour of Nikon's Z9 and the new teles.
> Especially in Europe, we suffer from abusive pricing by Canon (RF 800 and 1200), which cannot be justified by taxes or other duties.
> A US-Europe price difference is OK, but not to the current extent.
> If I were new to photography, I'm not certain I'd opt for Canon...
> PS: Sony wouldn't be the alternative.


Canon user for over 30 years here. Heavily invested. Never before considered switching brands. Never. If this trend of stupid prices, and stupid lenses continues, I have to seriously consider biting the bullet and jumping ship. It will be hard, but not impossible.

I have a gripe for example with the RF 100mm macro. More expensive than EF, larger, and stupidly has a shorter front lens to subject distance at close focus 1:1. The EF version with adapter is better for nature closeups.

Another little thing that annoys me. They used to have a small red ball on the lens mount side. This is now a cheaper elongated dot. Problem is I can't feel it with my finger so I have actually look to find it. It mattes for a pro. Yet prices are higher.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

2 cents said:


> That's still an insane amount of money for a camera that will be last generation in a couple of years.


Replacement cycles of mirrorless or SLRs tend to be every half decade. If I were to do a redo I'd replace every decade.

Unless it makes me money or a project pays for its expense then I do not see a purpose of upgrading that quickly if the use case largely does not change.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

2 cents said:


> That's still an insane amount of money for a camera that will be last generation in a couple of years.


Cameras and lenses are expensive, there's no doubt about that, and prices will rise a lot more as the photography market shrinks. But it's pointless worrying about how soon a camera will be outdated. Any camera you buy today should last at least 10-15 years before it becomes worn out or unreliable, and most 10 year old cameras will produce results indistinguishable from the latest releases. Too many of us get sucked into advertising hype and believe that the only way to get better photos is to get the latest and greatest gear. Not many of us really need 30fps, 8K or bird-eye AF - the truth is that we just like to have new toys and tools to play with.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

2 cents said:


> I have a gripe for example with the RF 100mm macro. More expensive than EF, larger, and stupidly has a shorter front lens to subject distance at close focus 1:1. The EF version with adapter is better for nature closeups.


Well no one is forcing you to buy it. I use the EF 100mm macro and the EF 180mm macro on my R5, and they are both stunning lenses. Canon have to offer extra features or higher specs in order to sell the RF lenses, but I'm not at all tempted by the RF 100mm due to a) the shorter front lens to subject distance at 1:1, b) the 1.4x magnification which I don't need, c) the aspherical aberration control that I don't need and d) the cost.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 8, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Canon user for over 30 years here. Heavily invested. Never before considered switching brands. Never. If this trend of stupid prices, and stupid lenses continues, I have to seriously consider biting the bullet and jumping ship. It will be hard, but not impossible.
> 
> I have a gripe for example with the RF 100mm macro. More expensive than EF, larger, and stupidly has a shorter front lens to subject distance at close focus 1:1. The EF version with adapter is better for nature closeups.
> 
> Another little thing that annoys me. They used to have a small red ball on the lens mount side. This is now a cheaper elongated dot. Problem is I can't feel it with my finger so I have actually look to find it. It mattes for a pro. Yet prices are higher.


No intention to switch brands, but I'm afraid my EOS mirrorless activity will remain limited to the EOS R plus 24-105 f4.
Since I have most lenses I need, I could perhaps buy in RF a new 14mm TS and save my money for travel. I certainly won't replace excellent EFs with only slightly better (?) RFs. 
The RF 1,2 50 & 85 are superb, much better than the EF counterparts, but, having Leica M Summiluxes, I just don't need them.


----------



## djack41 (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> If 1340g is excessive then I'm interested to know your description of belly fat?


The weight of the Z9 is close to the weight of the venerable Canon 1DX2 which is like a battleship compared to new offerings such as the Sony A1 or the Canon R3. That said, I'm confident the build quality of the Z9 is very high and superior to the Sony A1 or the R5.


----------



## tron (Apr 8, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> No intention to switch brands, but I'm afraid my EOS mirrorless activity will remain limited to the EOS R plus 24-105 f4.
> Since I have most lenses I need, I could perhaps buy in RF a new 14mm TS and save my money for travel. I certainly won't replace excellent EFs with only slightly better (?) RFs.
> The RF 1,2 50 & 85 are superb, much better than the EF counterparts, but, having Leica M Summiluxes, I just don't need them.


Similar for me and the new super tele RF lenses. I have 300 400DO and 500 latest EF versions and III TCs. I believe it's enough, especially with the super crazy prices. It is more important to try and find time to travel (and use at least a small subset of all these!).

Also as I have already mentioned in a previous post the price and weight of a Z9 adds to price and weight of 800PF so there is that. I would so much prefer an F mount 800PF but I am afraid/sure that I am a minority.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 8, 2022)

djack41 said:


> The weight of the Z9 is close to the weight of the venerable Canon 1DX2 which is like a battleship compared to new offerings such as the Sony A1 or the Canon R3. That said, I'm confident the build quality of the Z9 is very high and superior to the Sony A1 or the R5.


The Z9 feels really fantastic in your hands and sturdy. It feels very much more like a 1Dx than a R5 or A1 and that in my view is a good thing, especially once you put a sizeable lens on it. It works best with the 70-200, 100-400, and 400 at least form the lenses I have tried. The big lenses feel right on it but I don't like it as much when I put on one of the f/1.8 S lenses as they feel too small on it and work better on the Z6 which is more sized with the R5. The Z9 has never felt too heavy and instead has always felt like it was well balanced with a re-assuring "I am holding something" feeling which is hard to explain fully. The R3 feels similar but it doesn't feel quite as solid. Its a body so far that has been out with me since December in rain, wind, snow, and into such negative temperatures my phone stopped working until it heated up again.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

djack41 said:


> The weight of the Z9 is close to the weight of the venerable Canon 1DX2 which is like a battleship compared to new offerings such as the Sony A1 or the Canon R3. That said, I'm confident the build quality of the Z9 is very high and superior to the Sony A1 or the R5.


How's the battery life between these 3 bodies? 

Lenses tend to be kept for decades and bodies replaced within the decade.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Well no one is forcing you to buy it. I use the EF 100mm macro and the EF 180mm macro on my R5, and they are both stunning lenses. Canon have to offer extra features or higher specs in order to sell the RF lenses, but I'm not at all tempted by the RF 100mm due to a) the shorter front lens to subject distance at 1:1, b) the 1.4x magnification which I don't need, c) the aspherical aberration control that I don't need and d) the cost.


And e) focus-shift...a world premiere for a real macro lens.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> The Z9 feels really fantastic in your hands and sturdy. It feels very much more like a 1Dx than a R5 or A1 and that in my view is a good thing, especially once you put a sizeable lens on it. It works best with the 70-200, 100-400, and 400 at least form the lenses I have tried. The big lenses feel right on it but I don't like it as much when I put on one of the f/1.8 S lenses as they feel too small on it and work better on the Z6 which is more sized with the R5. The Z9 has never felt too heavy and instead has always felt like it was well balanced with a re-assuring "I am holding something" feeling which is hard to explain fully. The R3 feels similar but it doesn't feel quite as solid. Its a body so far that has been out with me since December in rain, wind, snow, and into such negative temperatures my phone stopped working until it heated up again.


Yes, it makes a lot of sense to have the z9 for shooting with big primes and long tele-zooms, especially if you're photographing animals & birds from a vehicle or hide, where the extra weight isn't an issue. The only problem is transporting the stuff - many internal flights in Africa and Asia have very stringent restrictions on luggage weight - sometimes just 10-15kg, and that has to include your clothes etc as well as your camera gear!

Big lenses can feel unbalanced and awkward on smaller bodies, while wide-angles and macro lenses are more comfortable on something smaller like a z7.

It will be interesting to see whether the "z8" manages to bridge the gap and provide a good compromise for tele and wideangle lenses on a single body.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

Sony have had their 200-600mm out for 3 years, and Sigma have been producing their 150-600mm models since 2014. Canon have the 100-500mm which by all accounts is an excellent lens, but has limitations when using tele-extenders, and doesn't have quite enough reach without one.

I'd be unlikely to switch brands because the performance and specs of almost any recent hi-res FF body would be fine for me. But I would consider switching to (or adding) a Nikon or Sony body just to get access to certain lenses. When I last switched brands, 11 years ago, Canon had the best (for me) range of lenses, but I think Sony and Nikon have better ranges (for me) now.

And I'd be happy to replace my 5DMkiv and R5 with a z9 and z7ii. Unfortunately, I can't justify the expense of switching, or to be more precise I'd much rather spend the money on travelling and discovering new places and subjects to photograph.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Well no one is forcing you to buy it. I use the EF 100mm macro and the EF 180mm macro on my R5, and they are both stunning lenses. Canon have to offer extra features or higher specs in order to sell the RF lenses, but I'm not at all tempted by the RF 100mm due to a) the shorter front lens to subject distance at 1:1, b) the 1.4x magnification which I don't need, c) the aspherical aberration control that I don't need and d) the cost.


e) the focus shift that is a 'feature' of the lens design.


----------



## diegopisante (Apr 8, 2022)

That's a big hit on Canon's face, Nikon is pushing back and they are doing really well...as Canon did to catch Sony I can see Nikon coming fast and cheaper them both...Canon has been abusive with their prices, for a real-world photographer it's nonsense the new prices, and if you already have your L lens set Canon makes you really think about where they are going.
If I'm just starting I don't know if would choose Canon.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sony have had their 200-600mm out for 3 years, and Sigma have been producing their 150-600mm models since 2014. Canon have the 100-500mm which by all accounts is an excellent lens, but has limitations when using tele-extenders, and doesn't have quite enough reach without one.


The limitation with extenders is that you can zoom out only to the 300mm setting, a niggle. But, as tiggy pointed out the extenders work best when they are close to the rear element of the lens, and so Canon has compromised on getting the best IQ at maximum zoom rather than maximum zoom range by having the TC go deep into the lens. And, believe me, it has worked. The RF 2x on the 100-500 has less image degradation than any combination of the EF 2xTC III with an EF lens I have ever tried (100-400mm II, 300mm f/2.8 II, 400mm DO II etc). The quality of the image from 1000mm is really good and as it is zoomed out to 600mm with the RF 2x. That 1000mm reach really is worth having, and you can zoom out to 600mm for BIF. I think you will love it for your butterflies close up.


----------



## timmy (Apr 8, 2022)

jam05 said:


> We? Proper? Canon needs no lesson. Merely because someone releases a cheap lens means very little. Most owners of xtra long lenses are not searching for discounts.


something tells me if Canon came out with a $6,500 800mm lens it would magically not be a cheap lens in your eyes but a grand creation from Canon that would have buyers scrambling? lol.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The limitation with extenders is that you can zoom out only to the 300mm setting, a niggle. But, as tiggy pointed out the extenders work best when they are close to the rear element of the lens, and so Canon has compromised on getting the best IQ at maximum zoom rather than maximum zoom range by having the TC go deep into the lens. And, believe me, it has worked. The RF 2x on the 100-500 has less image degradation than any combination of the EF 2xTC III with an EF lens I have ever tried (100-400mm II, 300mm f/2.8 II, 400mm DO II etc). The quality of the image from 1000mm is really good and as it is zoomed out to 600mm with the RF 2x. That 1000mm reach really is worth having, and you can zoom out to 600mm for BIF. I think you will love it for your butterflies close up.


I agree that the 100-500mm seems the best affordable compromise among the Canon range for bird and mammal photography, and I'll probably be getting one later in the year when I will visiting India and South Africa. I'd rather have a 150-600mm range though, and I'd rather have a wider max aperture at the long end, for subject isolation as much as for light-gathering. For UK birding, for the moment I'm getting extremely pleasing results using my EF100-400mm with 1.4x, and pretty good results from my 800mm F11.

I'd find the 100-500mm far too heavy and bulky for butterfly photography, having used my EF100-400mm for that purpose a few times. Also I don't believe that the 100-500mm would perform well enough at near-macro reproduction rates, compared with a purpose-designed macro.For butterflies, damselflies and other smallish insects I use the EF 100mm macro which balances very nicely. I wouldn't get the RF version because I don't need aspherical aberration control or 1.4x macro, and reviews indicate that it's no sharper than the EF lens. My favourite lens is the EF 180mm macro, which balances nicely and has superb bokeh and background rendition. It also stabilises very well, on the R5.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

diegopisante said:


> That's a big hit on Canon's face, Nikon is pushing back and they are doing really well...as Canon did to catch Sony I can see Nikon coming fast and cheaper them both...Canon has been abusive with their prices, for a real-world photographer it's nonsense the new prices, and if you already have your L lens set Canon makes you really think about where they are going.
> If I'm just starting I don't know if would choose Canon.


Canon make great camera bodies and fabulous lenses. The only reason to consider an alternative brand is if they offer a body feature that you desperately need, or if they offer lenses that are not available from Canon. My advice FWIW is to *always* look at the lens range before considering what body to buy.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> See the numbers in the post by @AlanF.
> 
> I know I’m a niche buyer. Some people cannot be convinced of their own lack of importance in the larger picture. To be clear, that’s also a thinly veiled comment directed at you.
> 
> ...


You’re taking the wrong summary from all of this, and that’s kind of my point. There’s a big difference between being a niche and not having any influence. All of these genres of photography could be considered niche by the very definition, and I’m not “embarrassed” or “taking offense” to being in a niche of photography. Lol. That’s absurd and complete spin. But to say that a niche of wildlife/sports/PJs doesn’t have much influence is my point. That’s completely false and the argument that this group of users doesn’t really have any sway on how Canon responds or makes their products is just silly. They’re a niche, yes we agree, like all other genres, but they’re certainly not a niche without influence. After all the top products in each of these company’s lineups are tooled for these photographers specifically.

And Canon did scramble to meet this niche and demand as evidenced by their rushed and half-assed superteles. They could have easily repackaged them, dressed them up nicely to look RF unique with the control rings, and really gone the distance like the other companies have, and yet they slapped a few mounts and TCs on them and pushed them out with the R3. That’s what a rush job looks like to get products into the field and avoid a flurry of users switching.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 8, 2022)

Very interesting how many respond to a post about a non-Canon product.
Seems the Nikkor PF 800 was the right kick into the anthill.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Very interesting how many respond to a post about a non-Canon product.
> Seems the Nikkor PF 800 was the right kick into the anthill.


People love threads which are an excuse to sound off opinions! It's fun, and why not!


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

northlarch said:


> You’re taking the wrong summary from all of this, and that’s kind of my point. There’s a big difference between being a niche and not having any influence. All of these genres of photography could be considered niche by the very definition, and I’m not “embarrassed” or “taking offense” to being in a niche of photography. Lol. That’s absurd and complete spin. But to say that a niche of wildlife/sports/PJs doesn’t have much influence is my point. That’s completely false and the argument that this group of users doesn’t really have any sway on how Canon responds or makes their products is just silly. They’re a niche, yes we agree, like all other genres, but they’re certainly not a niche without influence. After all the top products in each of these company’s lineups are tooled for these photographers specifically.
> 
> And Canon did scramble to meet this niche and demand as evidenced by their rushed and half-assed superteles. They could have easily repackaged them, dressed them up nicely to look RF unique with the control rings, and really gone the distance like the other companies have, and yet they slapped a few mounts and TCs on them and pushed them out with the R3. That’s what a rush job looks like to get products into the field and avoid a flurry of users switching.


Wildlife and bird photography-specific concerns were not addressed until the last 4 years with AF designed to keep track of the eyes of birds & other animals.

For decades the body & lens were really designed around the work challenges encountered by photo news agencies, photojournalists, sports photographers and other working photographers.

Wildlife & bird photography's just gravy that did not merit any material amount of R&D money

The RF super teles were designed to be as cheap to manufacture as possible so they may share parts with the last EF L lenses. Reason being it would allow after sales support and parts availability for as long as possible.

This was what they did with the 2015 5Ds R body whose ergonomics were largely copied from the 2012 5D Mark III. You can even use the same L bracket designed for the 2012 5D with the 2015 model.

In my mind I think they should not have bothered releasing these refreshed EF lenses as the RF system came out in Sept 2018.

2019

- Canon EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM
- Canon EF 600mm F4L IS III USM

2018

- Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS III USM
- Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS II USM

2016

- Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L III USM
- Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM

Doing so feels like a "bait and switch".


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> People love threads which are an excuse to sound off opinions! It's fun, and why not!


I agree! I have no intention to buy anything but it's awesome to discuss toys for the big boys.

I have friends and family who want to start bird photography as such the Z 800mm is what I'd endorse followed by the RF 800mm f/11 if they want as light weight and cheap a system as possible for a full frame mirrorless body.

If I could do a redo I'd have sold my whole EF system at these key points in time

- Jan 2020... a few months before Mar 2020 COVID lockdown
- Sep 2017... a full 52 weeks before the RF system was announced to avoid sudden depreciation
- Mar 2011... to avoid being exposed to the a-holes of PBPF & WBCP who want me to join their org because I was the 1st person to have a 800mm lens. They also want free photos for their fund raisers for their "research" and to dictate to me what is acceptable photographing behavior even when what I'm doing is perfectly legal.
- Jan 2009... to avoid buying any birding gear and prep myself for my MBA instead. I rather butt heads with capitalists than go into virtue signaling urinating contest over hurting the feelings of the birds


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2022)

northlarch said:


> And Canon did scramble to meet this niche and demand as evidenced by their rushed and half-assed superteles. They could have easily repackaged them, dressed them up nicely to look RF unique with the control rings, and really gone the distance like the other companies have, and yet they slapped a few mounts and TCs on them and pushed them out with the R3. That’s what a rush job looks like to get products into the field and avoid a flurry of users switching.


That’s one possible interpretation. I’m not sure it’s a logically defensible position that Canon did a half assed job on products for a market segment they really care about. If they cared about it, they would’ve designed those expensive supertele lenses for RF with control rings, a seamless look instead of an obviously bolted-on adapter, and probably a new color of ‘white’ paint, and done so alongside the early FF MILC bodies instead of doing a rush job three years later.

A more likely scenario is that they did the bare minimum to appease a small number of users of their high-end gear, because that niche market is not viewed as a priority for them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Another little thing that annoys me. They used to have a small red ball on the lens mount side. This is now a cheaper elongated dot. Problem is I can't feel it with my finger so I have actually look to find it. It mattes for a pro. Yet prices are higher.


The little thing that annoys me about the RF mount is that the rear caps only go on starting from a single position around the circle, instead of three. I hate it when an ‘improvement’ makes something harder to use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> - Jan 2009... to avoid buying any birding gear and prep myself for my MBA instead. I rather butt heads with capitalists than go into virtue signaling urinating contest over hurting the feelings of the birds


I worked for a venture capital firm. Sometimes my bird photography reminds me of that.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 8, 2022)

northlarch said:


> You’re telling me that anecdotes and inference aren’t data, and yet you’re presenting your own as conjecture. I don’t have the data—do you? I’m making assumptions based on observations; these three massive companies are scrambling early for wildlife/sports/PJs and the only conclusion I arrive at is because it makes them loads of money. We buy roughly the same products, so when they release superteles and fast pro bodies, that’s the market we’re talking about here. It’s their top-tier products…


I wouldn't characterise it as 'scrambling'. If the wildlife market was so important, why no 7D3 or mirrorless equivalent? Why no successor to the D500?


----------



## northlarch (Apr 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s one possible interpretation. I’m not sure it’s a logically defensible position that Canon did a half assed job on products for a market segment they really care about. If they cared about it, they would’ve designed those expensive supertele lenses for RF with control rings, a seamless look instead of an obviously bolted-on adapter, and probably a new color of ‘white’ paint, and done so alongside the early FF MILC bodies instead of doing a rush job three years later.
> 
> A more likely scenario is that they did the bare minimum to appease a small number of users of their high-end gear, because that niche market is not viewed as a priority for them.


Now we’re talking. We agree on this. And a lot of people believe it’s a mistake, including myself. And it’s not the wildlife niche alone, it’s the supertelephoto niche which includes wildlife, sports, photojournalists. They rushed out a mediocre product and the other brands have not, so they’ll lose some business. Their market research obviously indicates it’s not a priority for them but time will tell; they don’t always get it right. Personally, as a member of this niche, I’m going to spend my money with a company that prioritizes the niche, however, not one that puts out an inferior product and charges more for it. To each their own, I guess. We’ll see how it works out over time.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 8, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I wouldn't characterise it as 'scrambling'. If the wildlife market was so important, why no 7D3 or mirrorless equivalent? Why no successor to the D500?


Again, more selective hearing on the niche thing. It’s not just wildlife photographers we’re talking here, it’s anyone that uses supertelephoto lenses and the fast, higher end bodies. Same market. They rushed their entire supertele line out.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I worked for a venture capital firm. Sometimes my bird photography reminds me of that.
> 
> View attachment 203032


Now that's the sort of bird photography I'd want to get into.

"Nature is metal" type of shots so I can post it online to give the peacenicks hippie types a heart attack.

If WBCP & PBPF members saw this photo they'd accuse you off staging this photo. From my point of view... who the ****** cares but these nutjobs.

BBC, National Geographic, Discovery, etc stage things all the time to follow a certain narrative. Because without a story how would the audience understand in as simple a manner as possible?

Crazy people with so many hang ups over the most simple of things.

My birding experience taught me to really hate environmentalists. They're a bunch of shyster-like prostitutes desperate for donations even from "evil corporations" and "evil rich people" to fund their "research" to count the birds. The irony and hyprocacy makes it really funny.

They do not have the balls to offend their donors by telling the truth... if you really want to save the environment or the last 5 breeding pair of any animal just have 1 kid at most.

Having a Filipino-sized family means 4 kids or more... which results in more consumer demand for basic physiological needs that is normally extracted from wildlife habitats that are turned into industrial agricultural lands, woodlands turned into lumber yards, mountains turned into quarries for building materials, etc will put more pressure to produce these goods for these up to 85 year long carbon footprints.

"Liberating" your photos for fund raisings and other BS because they be slumming it with their digiscope setups. It's my intellectual property and it is my right to say how it be used regardless of the moral and ethinical ideas they try to impose on the photographer.

This is also one point I learned from starting birding at under 30... if you want to start a family do that instead of birding. The CIPA market research for bird & wildlife photography points to retirees mostly doing this activity. Looking back I agree with them.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Very interesting how many respond to a post about a non-Canon product.
> Seems the Nikkor PF 800 was the right kick into the anthill.


If CR puts up a post about Nikon, it would be very strange indeed if people didn't respond!

And it's hardly surprising that there has been a large response, and that in general people are praising Nikon for introducing highly desirable products for realistic prices, whereas Canon are tarting up old glass by adding a converter, and trying to rip customers off with unjustified high prices.

It's absolutely great news for Nikon users. It'll tempt quite a lot of Canon users who don't want to lug around gigantic lenses or pay crazy prices. And hopefully it will give Canon a very hard and fully deserved kick up the rear, and force them to introduce similar products at fair prices. Long-standing Canon customers deserve better than to be milked like this.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Again, more selective hearing on the niche thing. It’s not just wildlife photographers we’re talking here, it’s anyone that uses supertelephoto lenses and the fast, higher end bodies. Same market. They rushed their entire supertele line out.


Wildlife & bird photography specific concerns only became a R&D spend priority as marketing of all companies are trying raise sales of said items.

The key demo of these gear is still working photographers and photo news agencies as they buy on a schedule and in quantity. This is a primary market.

Those shooting fauna are just a niche sideline.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> Wildlife & bird photography specific concerns only became a R&D spend priority as marketing of all companies are trying raise sales of said items.
> 
> The key demo of these gear is still working photographers and photo news agencies as they buy on a schedule and in quantity. This is a primary market.
> 
> Those shooting fauna are just a niche sideline.


I agree with you on the sports and news agencies being the biggest target in this overall niche that uses superteles. They have the numbers. But as we’re seeing that’s shifting, as well. The flagships used to be sports-specific models and now they’re bumped for the all-rounder jack of all trades. Even so, sports and news agencies are still massive buyers on schedules as you mentioned. And they will certainly be evaluating who is offering the best products at the best prices, overall systems, and which company will take care of them. We’ve seen a lot of Sony announcements with said agencies so Canon has lost a step there. Decisions like these, to rush out their supertele lineup and charge a fortune for them—much lower value at a much higher cost comparatively—will not help them with those relationships. And if they’re not taking the overall telephoto niche seriously, that certainly won’t help those relationships either. We’ll see how it all plays out; I think it’s a foolish move, personally.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> Those shooting fauna are just a niche sideline.


I can't remember where I read this, so don't expect a link, but there was a user survey just a few months back that indicated that animal photographers were the largest sector of users.

Admittedly, that will include pets as well as wildlife, but it was clearly stated that animal photographers outnumbered sports, portraits, landscape, travel and other categories. Hardly a niche sideline.

It's certainly true that agencies and rental companies buy a lot of supertelephotos for PJ, and for use at major sports events, but an equally high number are probably bought by affluent birders and wildlife photographers. Just pay a visit to a hide at a local nature reserve, and look at the glass being used.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

northlarch said:


> I agree with you on the sports and news agencies being the biggest target in this overall niche that uses superteles. They have the numbers. But as we’re seeing that’s shifting, as well. The flagships used to be sports-specific models and now they’re bumped for the all-rounder jack of all trades. Even so, sports and news agencies are still massive buyers on schedules as you mentioned. And they will certainly be evaluating who is offering the best products at the best prices, overall systems, and which company will take care of them. We’ve seen a lot of Sony announcements with said agencies so Canon has lost a step there. Decisions like these, to rush out their supertele lineup and charge a fortune for them—much lower value at a much higher cost comparatively—will not help them with those relationships. And if they’re not taking the overall telephoto niche seriously, that certainly won’t help those relationships either. We’ll see how it all plays out; I think it’s a foolish move, personally.


In all honesty I think Canon knows their business better than any talking head on any photo forum. 

The RF system is designed to the T for their key account's requirements.

Z 800mm is a pleasant surprise for individual bird & wildlife photographer. It addresses the cost and weight concerns of said shooters

That lens may be 1/3rd too dark for indoor venues for the Olympics though.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> In all honesty I think Canon knows their business better than any talking head on any photo forum.
> 
> The RF system is designed to the T for their key account's requirements.
> 
> ...


So companies don’t miscalculate and make mistakes? If that were the case most of the conversation in forums such as this would be worthless. Maybe we should all just blindly accept whatever these companies put out; pick a brand and just loyally purchase whatever has that name on it. After all, the mighty business with its market research knows us all better than we do. BTW there’s a awful lot of conversation happening about this all over the place, so the “one talking head” comment is a little misinformed


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> I can't remember where I read this, so don't expect a link, but there was a user survey just a few months back that indicated that animal photographers were the largest sector of users.
> 
> Admittedly, that will include pets as well as wildlife, but it was clearly stated that animal photographers outnumbered sports, portraits, landscape, travel and other categories. Hardly a niche sideline.
> 
> It's certainly true that agencies and rental companies buy a lot of supertelephotos for PJ, and for use at major sports events, but an equally high number are probably bought by affluent birders and wildlife photographers. Just pay a visit to a hide at a local nature reserve, and look at the glass being used.


Is this a Canon/Nikon/Sony/CIPA initiated market survey or some photo forum user trying to strike up a conversation of what sort of photography other forum member does?

I've seen the actual industrial market surveys and wildlife/bird photography is but an outcrop and other application of these long fast lenses.

Who knows... when people treat pets like baby boys and baby girls then perhaps buying a 800mm to take a photo of Fido is the future?

The marketing behavior of Canon/Nikon for wildlife & bird photography tells me that it isn't a priority market relative to photo news agencies, et al.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

northlarch said:


> So companies don’t miscalculate and make mistakes? If that were the case most of the conversation in forums such as this would be worthless. Maybe we should all just blindly accept whatever these companies put out; pick a brand and just loyally purchase whatever has that name on it. After all, the mighty business with its market research knows us all better than we do.


The absurdity of your absolutism makes me understand why the "niche" was mentioned.

Take a chill pill. It's just gear and not your left nut that we are talking about.

Based on my experience with dozens of EF L lenses and nearly a dozen EF bodies I think the RF system is great.

The Z 800mm is a lens I wish it came out in 2008. $6.5k at less than 2.4kg at a comprimise of 1/3rd less light is a dream come true. Instead of 4 EF800mm used in the Philippines I could imagine 4 dozen with the Z 800mm


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> I've seen the actual industrial market surveys and wildlife/bird photography is but an outcrop and other application of these long fast lenses.


Then please provide a link. If you can't, then your speculation is no better than mine or anyone else's.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Then please provide a link. If you can't, then your speculation is no better than mine or anyone else's.


I’d really like to see this data, as well. I see a lot of talk and people writing off market segments as small, but I don’t recall seeing recent data to back that up. I’m genuinely curious. It would be especially interesting considering the shift to more a enthusiasts/professionals heavy lineup with phones eating into the lower tiers.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> The absurdity of your absolutism makes me understand why the "niche" was mentioned.
> 
> Take a chill pill. It's just gear and not your left nut that we are talking about.
> 
> ...


Perfectly chill over here. Gear is fun to discuss; you’ve posted in here probably more than anyone so you know as well as I do. No need to devolve and talk about losing nuts here.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Then please provide a link. If you can't, then your speculation is no better than mine or anyone else's.



I gave it a college try but I'm having difficulty finding CIPA PDF file that I read about half a decade ago.

If I knew I was going to be grilled in this manner I would have bookmarked it for your specific pleasure.

By the manner of your reply my guess is you're not that into reading industrial reports?


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> If I knew I was going to be grilled in this manner I would have bookmarked it for your specific pleasure.


If you make unsubstantiated claims, expect to be "grilled".


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> If CR puts up a post about Nikon, it would be very strange indeed if people didn't respond!
> 
> And it's hardly surprising that there has been a large response, and that in general people are praising Nikon for introducing highly desirable products for realistic prices, whereas Canon are tarting up old glass by adding a converter, and trying to rip customers off with unjustified high prices.
> 
> It's absolutely great news for Nikon users. It'll tempt quite a lot of Canon users who don't want to lug around gigantic lenses or pay crazy prices. And hopefully it will give Canon a very hard and fully deserved kick up the rear, and force them to introduce similar products at fair prices. Long-standing Canon customers deserve better than to be milked like this.


Remember the Arab saying that my enemy's enemy (= Sony) is my friend. Actually, Nikon makes brilliant gear, as does Sony who have kicked Canon's and Nikon's butts. I know what I want, and it's not an 800/6.3 even though I think it is a stunning lens.


----------



## dolina (Apr 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> If you make unsubstantiated claims, expect to be "grilled".


I think its more like I am disrupting your deeply held belief so I better show proof of the contrary to change your mind.

At 5am I've done best effort to find that old consumer survey. If CIPA removed it from their website then poor me. ;-) But to be honest, do I really want to win the Special Olympics by wasting my time to prove that I am correct?

In terms of R&D spending addressing specific concerns on bird & wildlife photography is not all that important until recently. I say this as Canon/Sony have promoted AF specific for birds & animals in the last half decade. This is an indication that the market for work photography has already saturated and they're trying to expand the market size of bird and wildlife photography by means of having new features specific for that applications.

That's one way to induce DSLR users to buy the mirrorless equivalent of their old gear.

This is a niche relative to the larger market of photo news agencies, PJ & sports. They're far from equal in size as there arent enough rich old men around who actually life animals much less this niche.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Remember the Arab saying that my enemy's enemy (= Sony) is my friend. Actually, Nikon makes brilliant gear, as does Sony who have kicked Canon's and Nikon's butts. I know what I want, and it's not an 800/6.3 even though I think it is a stunning lens.


There's a lot of truth in that - competition is what causes advancement.


----------



## entoman (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> I think its more like I am disrupting your deeply held belief so I better show proof of the contrary to change your mind.
> 
> At 5am I've done best effort to find that old consumer survey. If CIPA removed it from their website then poor me. ;-) But to be honest, do I really want to win the Special Olympics by wasting my time to prove that I am correct?
> 
> ...


Fail.


----------



## northlarch (Apr 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> I think its more like I am disrupting your deeply held belief so I better show proof of the contrary to change your mind.
> 
> At 5am I've done best effort to find that old consumer survey. If CIPA removed it from their website then poor me. ;-) But to be honest, do I really want to win the Special Olympics by wasting my time to prove that I am correct?
> 
> ...


I guess none of us will ever know until there’s data to prove that point. One can say they read it at some point on just about anything. And markets change. Trends change. Industries change. I’d like to see something, genuinely. You may be right—it’s certainly been the talking point for decades—but I’m guessing the birding/wildlife segment is much larger than many give it credit for, or lack thereof.

Either way, when speaking to the supertelephoto niche that includes sports and PJs along with wildlife, nobody is going to convince me that it’s not a big enough market to sway any of the Big Three. Their top of the line products are all geared for them so the money must be nice.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The limitation with extenders is that you can zoom out only to the 300mm setting, a niggle. But, as tiggy pointed out the extenders work best when they are close to the rear element of the lens, and so Canon has compromised on getting the best IQ at maximum zoom rather than maximum zoom range by having the TC go deep into the lens. And, believe me, it has worked. The RF 2x on the 100-500 has less image degradation than any combination of the EF 2xTC III with an EF lens I have ever tried (100-400mm II, 300mm f/2.8 II, 400mm DO II etc). The quality of the image from 1000mm is really good and as it is zoomed out to 600mm with the RF 2x. That 1000mm reach really is worth having, and you can zoom out to 600mm for BIF. I think you will love it for your butterflies close up.


That's quite interesting. I hadn't realised the 100-500 had that restriction until I watched Dustin Abbots review. I didn't think of keeping it close to the rear element of the lens and it makes sense it would be a good idea to restrict to 300mm min. It's certainly a tempting combination with the R5. 
While this Nikon lens is not exactly cheap it certainly ups the stakes for Canon. A Z9 / 800mm combination is certainly better value than an R3 / 800mm even if its not a direct comparison. I think Canon have exploited shortages and limited opposition. This is where a strong Nikon helps Canon users. Canon have to be careful not to overplay their hand. A Nikon Z9 / 800mm or a Sony A1 / 200-600mm are attractive system shifts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Personally, as a member of this niche, I’m going to spend my money with a company that prioritizes the niche, however, not one that puts out an inferior product and charges more for it. To each their own, I guess. We’ll see how it works out over time.


I am a member of several niches. I shoot birds with the 600/4 and 100-500. I shoot architecture with the TS-E 17 and 24, and sometimes the 11-24. I shoot macro with the 100/2.8 and mostly the MP-E 65 1-5x. I shoot portraits with the 70-200/2.8 and now also the 28-70/2.

The Nikon 800/6.3 looks like quite a nice lens. Nikon doesn’t have anything to match the TS-E 17, the MP-E 65 or the 28-70/2. Nor does Sony. For me, Canon offers the broadest range of niche lenses that match my use cases.


----------



## talkin73 (Apr 9, 2022)

Bonich said:


> I'm OK with a R3 and R1 within the kit for this price.


What is an R1?


----------



## Czardoom (Apr 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> Fail.


It's funny how some folks think a conversation on a forum - or even a debate - is some sort of legal procedure as if we are in a court of law. People have experiences, people have recollections. Sure it's nice to have actual articles or quotes, but no one has to prove anything on an internet forum. if you think someone's recollections are not good enough, feel free to have your doubts, but don't ask or demand - or even expect people to take time and effort just to prove something to you. Who are you?? You are not the judge or the jury. You're just another a-hole on the internet based on your comments in this thread. Nobody in their right mind would waste more than the few minutes it has taken me to comment to your egotistical reply to try to prove a point to you just because you don't agree with what they say or remember reading.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 9, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> It's funny how some folks think a conversation on a forum - or even a debate - is some sort of legal procedure as if we are in a court of law. People have experiences, people have recollections. Sure it's nice to have actual articles or quotes, but no one has to prove anything on an internet forum. if you think someone's recollections are not good enough, feel free to have your doubts, but don't ask or demand - or even expect people to take time and effort just to prove something to you. Who are you?? You are not the judge or the jury. You're just another a-hole on the internet based on your comments in this thread. Nobody in their right mind would waste more than the few minutes it has taken me to comment to your egotistical reply to try to prove a point to you just because you don't agree with what they say or remember reading.


Thank you. As if it's life or death. Shit... it's just 'stuff'.


----------



## dolina (Apr 9, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Either way, when speaking to the supertelephoto niche that includes sports and PJs along with wildlife, nobody is going to convince me that it’s not a big enough market to sway any of the Big Three. Their top of the line products are all geared for them so the money must be nice.



In terms of sales volume wildlife/bird photography does not sell as many super teles as PJ and sports.

Wildlife/bird photography is an important market is like Apple saying poor countries like the Philippines is an important market for the iPhone. But it does not have the iPhone sales volume of rich markets of say Japan, US or Europe.

This is why wildlife/bird-specific features only got released fairly recently as it is an indicator that Canon/Sony are trying to expand that market. This was not the case in the past.

So do not get offended that within users of super teles wildlife/bird photography is a niche relative to the press. There just arent enough over 60yo rich men buying these gear for their hobby relative to the mass media buyers.

A comparable analogy is that of dishwashing detergent. It is a food grade approach to stripping of grease from plates, glassware, metal ware and flatware. 

It was repurposed when oil spills occurs and impacted the birds within that habitat. It is used to clean up the wildlife from the crude oil that impacts it. As oil spills does not occur that frequently there is little to no R&D spending for a oil spill-specific solution for rescuing animals.

Are oil spills as large a market as dish washing? No, but it is an important market


----------



## dolina (Apr 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> I can't remember where I read this, so don't expect a link, but there was a user survey just a few months back that indicated that animal photographers were the largest sector of users.
> 
> Admittedly, that will include pets as well as wildlife, but it was clearly stated that animal photographers outnumbered sports, portraits, landscape, travel and other categories. Hardly a niche sideline.
> 
> It's certainly true that agencies and rental companies buy a lot of supertelephotos for PJ, and for use at major sports events, but an equally high number are probably bought by affluent birders and wildlife photographers. Just pay a visit to a hide at a local nature reserve, and look at the glass being used.



While searching the market research for wildlife/bird photographers I found the CIPA report that covers *animals*. See how your point of view aligns with CIPA's research.



https://www.cipa.jp/documents/e/pressrelease20210121_bcipa_e.pdf


----------



## dolina (Apr 9, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Thank you. As if it's life or death. Shit... it's just 'stuff'.



If you think about it they should be thankful that people like me or @neuroanatomist participate on threads like these.

We bring with us decades of experience.

I started digital still photography in 1996 with the Kodak DC20. My first Canon digital camera was a 2000 PowerShot A40. The first DSLR I started using was a 2003 EOS 10D.

So the volume of written material on camera gear we've read is very substantial.

Canon puts out a press release about milestones in the number of EF bodies and lenses they've shipped. A bit of math would yield that for every 1 EOS body made there is a corresponding 2 lenses produced.

This can be interpreted that most film SLR and DSLR made have their kit lens never being removed and hobbyists who have dozens of lenses are niche as even majority of working photographers would struggle to have half a dozen lenses.

These reports and stats disrupts the internal narrative to some users who have an overblown sense of importance of what they are doing.

Gents, it isn't your right nut we're talking about but gear. ;-)

On that note I found the number of 200mm f/1.8L lenses produced. It is estimated about 8,000 was only produced based on these scholarly sources

- https://petapixel.com/2017/05/20/canon-200mm-f1-8-legendary-lens-known-eye-sauron/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_200mm_lens
- https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/1713210

Production ended in 1998... makes me wish I was able to buy one 5 years prior to buying the 10D.

But then again many owners have told me that my purchase of the 2008 200mm f/2.0 IS is a better buy. As it was stated by Canon to be discontinued 13 months ago I wonder if the direct replacement will be a fraction of a f-stop faster or slower?


----------



## northlarch (Apr 9, 2022)

dolina said:


> In terms of sales volume wildlife/bird photography does not sell as many super teles as PJ and sports.
> 
> Wildlife/bird photography is an important market is like Apple saying poor countries like the Philippines is an important market for the iPhone. But it does not have the iPhone sales volume of rich markets of say Japan, US or Europe.
> 
> ...


I’m not going to continue wasting my time anymore with you on this. You seem to have a hard time with reading comprehension as you keep trying to make the point of separation that the wildlife community is small and sports and PJs are bigger. I’ve told you several times now that I agree sports and PJs account for more than wildlife shooters. Not sure why you’re stuck on that and keep digressing there. You also keep going back to the spin of me being offended I’m in a small niche, which is ridiculous.

They’re all supertelephoto purchasers. There’s a ton of overlap; they buy the same gear. So it’s the supertelephoto market, not a wildlife market or a sports market or a PJ market. Arguing over which of those sub-niches buys more is silly; we’re talking superteles here and this is the group of photographers that buys them. It’s been weird talking with you, but good night and we’ll agree to disagree I guess.


----------



## dolina (Apr 9, 2022)

northlarch said:


> I’m not going to continue wasting my time anymore with you on this. You seem to have a hard time with reading comprehension as you keep trying to make the point of separation that the wildlife community is small and sports and PJs are bigger. I’ve told you several times now that I agree sports and PJs account for more than wildlife shooters. Not sure why you’re stuck on that and keep digressing there. You also keep going back to the spin of me being offended I’m in a small niche, which is ridiculous.
> 
> They’re all supertelephoto purchasers. There’s a ton of overlap; they buy the same gear. So it’s the supertelephoto market, not a wildlife market or a sports market or a PJ market. Arguing over which of those sub-niches buys more is silly; we’re talking superteles here and this is the group of photographers that buys them. It’s been weird talking with you, but good night and we’ll agree to disagree I guess.


I am speaking about which segment buys more.

You are asserting that wildlife/bird photographers buy equal quantities to the press, which will never be the case unless the price & physical weight of the gear becomes accessible enough.

Typically equipment like these are bought to generate revenue.

Hobbies are blackhole for money


----------



## dolina (Apr 9, 2022)

Going back to the the topic of lenses here is a table to help provide a side by side comparison of relevant lenses introduced in 2008 & later that are comparable to the Z 800mm. 

These are arranged (L-R) from physically lightest to heaviest.
​
Brand​Canon​Canon​Nikon​Canon​Canon​Canon​Nikon​Year of Introduction​2020​2010​2022​2008​2022​2008​2013​Model​RF 800mm f/11 IS STM​EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM​Nikkor Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S​EF 200mm f/2L IS USM​RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM​EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM​AF-S Nikkor 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR​Mount​RF​EF​Z​EF​RF​EF​F​Weight without lens hood​1.26kg​2.35kg​2.385kg​2.52kg​3.14kg​4.5kg​4.59kg​f-number​f/11​f/2.8​f/6.3​f/2.0​f/5.6​f/5.6​f/5.6​Price​$1,000​$6,100​$6,500​$7,000​$17,000​$13,000​$16,300​Status​In Production​In Production​In Production​Discontinued​In Production​Discontinued​In Production​


----------



## northlarch (Apr 9, 2022)

dolina said:


> I am speaking about which segment buys more.
> 
> You are asserting that wildlife/bird photographers buy equal quantities to the press, which will never be the case unless the price & physical weight of the gear becomes accessible enough.
> 
> ...


I literally just told you I’m not asserting that and you respond with saying I am. No. No, I’m not. I never once said or implied wildlife photographers were buying more than sports or press. Maybe you’ve managed to convince yourself of your own story but it doesn’t make it true.

And when we’re talking about segments, I’ve been talking about the supertelephoto segment (wildlife/sports/PJs combined) this whole discussion. For whatever reason you are hung up on trying to prove bird photographers and wildlife photographers are a small and recent market. I don’t really care. It has nothing to do with the discussion about how people who buy supertelephoto lenses and fast pro bodies influence Canon.

Sorry, dolina, but you’re driving me a little crazy and clogging up the discussion. Muting.


----------



## dolina (Apr 9, 2022)

northlarch said:


> I literally just told you I’m not asserting that and you respond with saying I am. No. No, I’m not. I never once said or implied wildlife photographers were buying more than sports or press. Maybe you’ve managed to convince yourself of your own story but it doesn’t make it true.
> 
> And when we’re talking about segments, I’ve been talking about the supertelephoto segment (wildlife/sports/PJs combined) this whole discussion. For whatever reason you are hung up on trying to prove bird photographers and wildlife photographers are a small and recent market. I don’t really care. It has nothing to do with the discussion about how people who buy supertelephoto lenses and fast pro bodies influence Canon.



Wait, aren't you the guy who got offended by the word "niche"?? I recall you insisting that wildlife/bird photography is as large as the press segment.

I never stated that wildlife/bird photography is a recent market. What I said was Canon/Sony/Nikon are trying to expand this relatively small market to a larger one by introducing tech that improves AF in relation to photographing the eye of animals and by way of making cheaper & physically lighter gear that are nearly as good as earlier faster 800mm lenses.

Why the renewed focus on this market? Because they're trying to increase sales in what they may see as a non-mature market.

Press segment is already saturated and may not buy any further. So the excess production capacity would not be redirected to over 60yo men looking to enter wildlife/bird photography it is an untapped market.

The photographer who did that model shoot of the Z 800mm was clever enough to hire a short, waif-like girl to carry the lens around. It conveys to me that the lens hand holdable for "weaker" sex which adds to the allure of this lens to those who do not do weight training or who are baby boomers.

Here are news article on the great wealth transfer that may be either sent to their children or spent on wildlife/bird photography gear

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joseph...shouldnt-cash-that-check-yet/?sh=7deb5fcf2dde
https://www.euromoney.com/article/b1n0rl4jwqpvx8/generation-next-and-the-great-wealth-transfer
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/12/the...-a-big-tax-impact-how-to-reduce-the-bite.html
@neuroanatomist pointed to my being a niche. I never took offense to it as my photography is far from the norm. Others of my generation would be limited to people and landscape photography. They'd have to put up with prospecive correction within software rather than through hardware. Bird photography? It's more of a chore than a past time. Based on the marketing material and marketing people I've spoken to what I have been doing 2009 is rather unique.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 9, 2022)

Are there any paid PJs in this thread? Any paid wildlife shooters? Anyone getting paid to take photos of birds?


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> [..] but I'm not at all tempted by the RF 100mm due to a) the shorter front lens to subject distance at 1:1, [..]


Ehm, it actually has a *larger* subject distance at 1:1




The EF100L had a working distance of 67mm at 1:1, the RF100L seems to actually be 100mm at 1:1. So you get 50% more working distance at 1:1!

The EVF shows about 34mm horizontally when I put the tape measure in front, so it's slightly more that 1:1, since that would need to have 36mm.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 9, 2022)

dilbert said:


> Are there any paid PJs in this thread? Any paid wildlife shooters? Anyone getting paid to take photos of birds?


I get paid selling photos of foxes and birds. Enough to cover my gear, insurance, expenses, and trips. If I put more in, I would get more out. But I already earn enough money so I don’t push for making more.


----------



## pzyber (Apr 9, 2022)

I want a 600/5.6L or 600/6.3L (No PF). Priced at maximum 3K.

Meanwhile I'm waiting I use my 400/5.6L with 1.4 extender on fullframe or without extender on my 7D.

Alternatively I use my Tamron 150-600 G2 that is 6.3 at the long end that I got brand new for 1K. It's a really nice lens, well built etc. I wish canon would make a competitive 600 prime, that would be an instant buy.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 9, 2022)

pzyber said:


> I want a 600/5.6L or 600/6.3L (No PF). Priced at maximum 3K.
> 
> Meanwhile I'm waiting I use my 400/5.6L with 1.4 extender on fullframe or without extender on my 7D.
> 
> Alternatively I use my Tamron 150-600 G2 that is 6.3 at the long end that I got brand new for 1K. It's a really nice lens, well built etc. I wish canon would make a competitive 600 prime, that would be an instant buy.


A non DO/PF 5.6 or 6.3 would be very long and slender. I am not sure how well that would sell compared to a more compact design.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Apr 9, 2022)

Canon RF 600mm/F4 and RF800/5.6 are great lenses.
I may sell some of my gears to trade in, emm, Nikon.
Just because of this ridiculous Z800/6.3.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 9, 2022)

Rzrsharp said:


> Canon RF 600mm/F4 and RF800/5.6 are great lenses.
> I may sell some of my gears to trade in, emm, Nikon.
> Just because of this ridiculous Z800/6.3.


Get your order in fast. It is going to be a long wait for some.


----------



## Bonich (Apr 9, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> That's quite interesting. I hadn't realised the 100-500 had that restriction until I watched Dustin Abbots review. I didn't think of keeping it close to the rear element of the lens and it makes sense it would be a good idea to restrict to 300mm min. It's certainly a tempting combination with the R5.
> While this Nikon lens is not exactly cheap it certainly ups the stakes for Canon. A Z9 / 800mm combination is certainly better value than an R3 / 800mm even if its not a direct comparison. I think Canon have exploited shortages and limited opposition. This is where a strong Nikon helps Canon users. Canon have to be careful not to overplay their hand. A Nikon Z9 / 800mm or a Sony A1 / 200-600mm are attractive system shifts.


I do like Nikon stirring up the market with the Z9, the 400 with switchable TC, the 800 6.3. . If a Wildlife photographer needs more her it is: Z100-400, PF 500.
I was worrying about Nikon when they started with the Noct on a path to quiet museums.

Now I have the RF 100-500 in my hand, still holding me back to replace the 1DX II with the R3 which I love beside of prizing and MPX.
The EF600 II and the 200-400 with switchable TC are still the work horses on the 1DX ii and the R5. The money for a 400 2.8 with switchable TC is rotting unused - or I have to change the system. And the 800PF would be a nice add on.


----------



## Bonich (Apr 9, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Ehm, it actually has a *larger* subject distance at 1:1
> View attachment 203035
> View attachment 203036
> 
> ...


Measuring the EF100 IS vs RF100 IS using an old transparency frame to get the 35mm object:
- Working distance RF Macro: 107mm
- Working distance EF Macro: 130mm


----------



## Bonich (Apr 9, 2022)

dilbert said:


> Are there any paid PJs in this thread? Any paid wildlife shooters? Anyone getting paid to take photos of birds?


For shooting birds there is no need getting paid.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 9, 2022)

Bonich said:


> Measuring the EF100 IS vs RF100 IS using an old transparency frame to get the 35mm object:
> - Working distance RF Macro: 107mm
> - Working distance EF Macro: 130mm


What's the framing you get at MFD for the EF100L? I always assumed MFD was 1:1, which might not be the case judging from your results.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 9, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> What's the framing you get at MFD for the EF100L? I always assumed MFD was 1:1, which might not be the case judging from your results.


A possible explanation is one, or both, of the lenses have focus breathing and a focal length shorter than 100mm at MFD.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> A possible explanation is one, or both, of the lenses are not parfocal, and has a focal length shorter than 100mm at MFD.


I think you mean focus breathing, not parfocality. The EF 100mm macro frames at ~68mm at 1:1.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think you mean focus breathing, not parfocality. The EF 100mm macro frames at ~68mm at 1:1.


You're right, my mistake.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 9, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I get paid selling photos of foxes and birds. Enough to cover my gear, insurance, expenses, and trips. If I put more in, I would get more out. But I already earn enough money so I don’t push for making more.



And what's your take on this? If Nikon consistently roll out lenses at 1/3 of the cost but 1/3 stop slower, would that tempt you to move? I suppose most pro's today have already spent the money? How often do you need to buy a new long lens? Do you just hire them and factor in that cost as part of the job? (Lots of movie making is done by cameras and lenses being hired, never owned by anyone but the renting house.)


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 9, 2022)

dilbert said:


> And what's your take on this? If Nikon consistently roll out lenses at 1/3 of the cost but 1/3 stop slower, would that tempt you to move? I suppose most pro's today have already spent the money? How often do you need to buy a new long lens? Do you just hire them and factor in that cost as part of the job? (Lots of movie making is done by cameras and lenses being hired, never owned by anyone but the renting house.)


I have already switched from Canon to Nikon as I had been using Canon for donkeys years and the Nikon Z6 looked more appealing than the Canon R. The 500 PF with the Z6 was a really amazing combination that I loved for wildlife more than any other camera and lens combo and that 500 PF is even better on the Z9. The 800 PF is now ordered and before it I would never had bought a 800 as they are too expensive and heavy. Usually I would buy a big lens as and when I need it and they replace a big lens with a big lens so the 500 PF is gone with the 800 PF taking its spot. Before that I used a Canon 300mm f/2.8 L from 1988 for something like 15-20 years and only used the bigger lenses via rental as and when I knew I would need them. I know a lot of wildlife pros that would own one big lens and rent the others per assignment as you always got the latest lens.


----------



## dolina (Apr 9, 2022)

If you visit Adorama & BH Photo the Z 800mm is the most popular mirrorless lens being bought on their respective sites.

RF400/2.8,RF600/4, RF800/5.6, RF1200/8 all are on page 10 or further.

It would be awesome if Nikon were able to ship the Z9 body with the Z 800mm on the same date together.  
If I was buying one i'd do it that way.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 9, 2022)

dolina said:


> If you visit Adorama & BH Photo the Z 800mm is the most popular mirrorless lens being bought on their respective sites.
> 
> RF400/2.8,RF600/4, RF800/5.6, RF1200/8 all are on page 10 or further.
> 
> ...


I ordered from my local store in the first 5-10 minutes of pre ordered opening and I am in the first 10 of... well he stopped counting after a while. I ordered in the first minute for the Z9 and got mine on Christmas Eve as the 18th order and I know they had at least a few hundred and there are a good 800 orders ahead of me for my second body. There has never been a time I can recall when there has been a legitimate queue like this for pro bodies and lenses. When I ordered a 1Dx I didn't pre order and just bought it then it came the next day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> There has never been a time I can recall when there has been a legitimate queue like this for pro bodies and lenses. When I ordered a 1Dx I didn't pre order and just bought it then it came the next day.


People who preordered the R3 from B&H in the first three hours on launch day got cameras from the first shipment. Those who preordered later than 9a ET / 6a PT on launch day waited weeks or months.


----------



## dolina (Apr 9, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I ordered from my local store in the first 5-10 minutes of pre ordered opening and I am in the first 10 of... well he stopped counting after a while. I ordered in the first minute for the Z9 and got mine on Christmas Eve as the 18th order and I know they had at least a few hundred and there are a good 800 orders ahead of me for my second body. There has never been a time I can recall when there has been a legitimate queue like this for pro bodies and lenses. When I ordered a 1Dx I didn't pre order and just bought it then it came the next day.


Last 25 months have been very disruptive to people's routines.

Many were prevented from spending the money they would have.

Others did well in crypto, stocks and other equities.

This is an opportune time to transition from DSLR to mirrorless. the CIPA numbers shows that inflection point occurring last year. Probably the reason why Canon discontinued so many EF lenses 13 months ago.

On BH Photo only 12 EF DSLR SKUs are left in-stock

2020

EOS Rebel T8i
EOS-1D X Mark III
2019

EOS 90D
EOS Rebel SL3
2017

EOS Rebel T7
EOS 6D Mark II
2016

EOS 5D Mark IV
EOS Rebel T6
EOS 80D
EOS-1D X Mark II
2015

EOS 5DS R
2009

EOS 7D
I find it odd that the pre-2017 DSLRs are still listed. I'd think it's been exhausted by now.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2022)

Well... Canon is again third... I have, for a year now, a R5 : until firmware 1.4 I've had no problems. All changed for me from firmware 1.5...
And now there is this lens from Nikon ...
Are Canon 's engineers asleep ?
Or incompetent ?
The near future will show us.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> People who preordered the R3 from B&H in the first three hours on launch day got cameras from the first shipment. Those who preordered later than 9a ET / 6a PT on launch day waited weeks or months.


What's more contagious: GAS or Covid? I suppose there's no vaccine for one of them.


----------



## Tom W (Apr 9, 2022)

Canon really needs to fill that gap between top-of-the-line optics (the big white lenses) and cheap lenses like the 800 f/11. Right now, Nikon is willing to compete in that area and Canon is not. 
Love my 500 f/4 IS II, but it's not a walkabout lens like my Sigma 150-600 is.


----------



## InchMetric (Apr 9, 2022)

1. If Canon had one like this in the works, it would price nicely among the 800f11, the 400 2.8 with 2x tc and the 800 5.6

2. a lens like this in the pipeline would help explain the high price for the big 800, though I believe that inflation and price hikes on the other big whites are more likely scenarios.


----------



## ISv (Apr 10, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What's more contagious: GAS or Covid? I suppose there's no vaccine for one of them.


What strain of Covid do you mean? We were able to produce vaccines in "emergency" mode in really short time for the first Covid strains. It decreased the ## of deaths even for strains that were out of the spectrum... I mean it still works somehow even for new strains (yes - with low efficiency!).
Now we know that we have to live with the Covid as we are with the flu... Not the perspective that we would like but it's what viruses do!
For the GAS? Well I'm not resistant, are you?! And it could be because nobody ever made a vaccine against GAS ! Oops - no way to make such a vaccine - it's programed in the human brain - we want always the best (and sometimes we don't actually know what exactly is the best?)


----------



## AlanF (Apr 10, 2022)

ISv said:


> What strain of Covid do you mean? We were able to produce vaccines in "emergency" mode in really short time for the first Covid strains. It decreased the ## of deaths even for strains that were out of the spectrum... I mean it still works somehow even for new strains (yes - with low efficiency!).
> Now we know that we have to live with the Covid as we are with the flu... Not the perspective that we would like but it's what viruses do!
> For the GAS? Well I'm not resistant, are you?! And it could be because nobody ever made a vaccine against GAS ! Oops - no way to make such a vaccine - it's programed in the human brain - we want always the best (and sometimes we don't actually know what exactly is the best?)


Another similarity between COVID and GAS is that when a new strain/gear comes along you catch them both again.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 10, 2022)

ISv said:


> What strain of Covid do you mean? We were able to produce vaccines in "emergency" mode in really short time for the first Covid strains. It decreased the ## of deaths even for strains that were out of the spectrum... I mean it still works somehow even for new strains (yes - with low efficiency!).
> Now we know that we have to live with the Covid as we are with the flu... Not the perspective that we would like but it's what viruses do!
> For the GAS? Well I'm not resistant, are you?! And it could be because nobody ever made a vaccine against GAS ! Oops - no way to make such a vaccine - it's programed in the human brain - we want always the best (and sometimes we don't actually know what exactly is the best?)


There have been attempts to vaccinate against GAS, here's one from about 3000 years ago, the Tenth Commandment. The uptake is low and so there isn't herd immunity.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 10, 2022)

There is a cure for Leica GAS: a look at the price list.
Alas, it doesn't cure all variants.
Edit: I was wrong, the cure is inefficient (new baby in bag).


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 10, 2022)

"Doest thou have any affection?
Yes, gracious Madam.
Indeed?
No, not in deed, cause I can buy nothing"


----------



## juststeve (Apr 10, 2022)

I cannot help but think how well that 800PF and a Z9 or Z7ii would pair with my 100-500 and R5. The R3 pretty much becomes superfluous. And I doubt Canon will make anything like it in the near future, a consideration as I am getting a bit long in the tooth.

And it is not Canon's way to make something directly competitive when more niche lenses are involved.

So, what could Canon. do? How about making at 600/4.5 or 600/4.8 DO lens? A 4.5 lens would be 133mm plus and a 4.8 lens 125mm plus, the same as the 500/4. Add a 1.4x and there you are at 840/6.3 or 6.8 and have more flexible option and one most likely even a bit lighter and stubbier. Please hurry with this one Canon, like hint it is already well along in development. I am impatient and it seems some other people are too.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 10, 2022)

juststeve said:


> I cannot help but think how well that 800PF and a Z9 or Z7ii would pair with my 100-500 and R5.


You are going to want a shorter lens to go with a 800 PF anyway. For me it is going to be my 100-400 S on a Z7ii or spare Z9. There are times at 800mm where I know for sure that something interesting will get too close on occasion.


----------



## ISv (Apr 11, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> You are going to want a shorter lens to go with a 800 PF anyway. For me it is going to be my 100-400 S on a Z7ii or spare Z9. There are times at 800mm where I know for sure that something interesting will get too close on occasion.


Or in to many occasions... Especially if you are an opportunistic shooter like me!


----------



## dolina (Apr 11, 2022)

Another way of looking at the Z 800mm 6.3 vs RF 800mm 5.6 is that the market positioning of the two lenses.

Nikon is for primarily an outdoor, wildlife and bird photography lens that generally does not generate any revenue for working photographers.

Canon is for well lit indoor, wildlife and bird photography that generally generates revenue for working photographers.

In both marketing position the price reflects this. The timing is also great considering we're getting out of COVID and many have a lot of unused cash to spend on.

My dream lens would be a 400/2.8 with built-in 1.4x & 2.0x TC that was designed for this lens design in mind. This lens would consolidate the 3-4 lens SKUs that are

- 400/2.8
- 600/4.0
- 800/5.6
and possibly
- 500/4.0

Having consolidated 3-4 lens SKUs into one would increase its sales by possibly 3-4x.

Many would ask... why a prime and not a zoom? Primes are simpler in design and lighter in weight as compared to a zoom.

Another wish list for me would have all mirrorless lens design using material science advances in PF (Phase Fresnel) and DO Diffractive Optics.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 11, 2022)

dolina said:


> Nikon is for primarily an outdoor, wildlife and bird photography lens that generally does not generate any revenue for working photographers.
> 
> Canon is for well lit indoor, wildlife and bird photography that generally generates revenue for working photographers.



This is an arbitrary distinction that you're making and you're making it incorrectly. It's a completely assinine statement because it bears about as much resemblence to reality as does certain claims about an election being stolen.

The difference between the Canon and the Nikon lens is 1/3 of stop, or the difference between ISO 800 and 1000.

If you want to imagine that this difference means that one lens can be used for X and the other cannot then it says more about you than it does about the equipment.


----------



## dolina (Apr 11, 2022)

dilbert said:


> This is an arbitrary distinction that you're making and you're making it incorrectly. It's a completely assinine statement because it bears about as much resemblence to reality as does certain claims about an election being stolen.
> 
> The difference between the Canon and the Nikon lens is 1/3 of stop, or the difference between ISO 800 and 1000.
> 
> If you want to imagine that this difference means that one lens can be used for X and the other cannot then it says more about you than it does about the equipment.



I am referring to the Z 800/6.3 and RF 800/5.6 based on their price point, physical weight and f-number. Not the brands, companies or mirrorless systems they represent.

At a difference of 1/3rd stop, 1/2 physical weight and 1/3rd price point what would be the target use and who would be the target market?

Focus on the intended use case. At $6.5k & $17k what would be bought based on application.

Majority of wildlife/birds are non-revenue generating activity like a hobby. 

While press, sports, etc is normally done for revenue.

In the marketing of the Z 800mm has a skinny under 5'4" young lady shooting with a less than 2.4kg lens. 

The RF 800m 5.6 has an older, taller and more heavy set man.

If I were to consider buying a 800mm I would not be so cynical to be obnoxious to other people.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2022)

northlarch said:


> Again, more selective hearing on the niche thing. It’s not just wildlife photographers we’re talking here, it’s anyone that uses supertelephoto lenses and the fast, higher end bodies. Same market. They rushed their entire supertele line out.


I just disagree with your much-repeated contention that Canon has 'rushed' or 'scrambled' anything. Given continued gaps in the supertelephoto lineup, the opposite is easier to argue.




northlarch said:


> If that were the case most of the conversation in forums such as this would be worthless.


You're saying it's not??


----------



## dolina (Apr 11, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I just disagree with your much-repeated contention that Canon has 'rushed' or 'scrambled' anything. Given continued gaps in the supertelephoto lineup, the opposite is easier to argue.
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying it's not??


Canon did not rush the 800 or 1200 out.

They looked for a cost effective way to reuse existing intellectual property to create a new SKU.

I would not be surprised that the R&D cost for the 800 & 1200 were largely paid for by the 400 & 600.

Heck, it's in the CR post about it.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 11, 2022)

dolina said:


> Canon did not rush the 800 or 1200 out.
> 
> They looked for a cost effective way to reuse existing intellectual property to create a new SKU.
> 
> ...


The R&D for the RF 400 and RF 600 were largely paid for by the EF 400 III and 600 III as they are identical optically. And the 800 and 1200 cannibalised those. Not bad, 3 generations of lenses from one basic design!


----------



## dolina (Apr 11, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The R&D for the RF 400 and RF 600 were largely paid for by the EF 400 III and 600 III as they are identical optically. And the 800 and 1200 cannibalised those. Not bad, 3 generations of lenses from basic design!


They did an Intel! Intel got stuck in a die shrink for about a decade...

Once Apple Silicon chips were revealed Intel all of a sudden can do die shrinks again.

Here's the CR post about the reuse of lens designs.

Those who are having a fit over this may want to ask themselves what meaningful change in lens design & material science can you expect from Sep 2018 to today? That's less than 4 years difference!

Smart business move is to reuse the design 3x.

Typically introduction of a super tele upgrade is 11-12 years per cycle. So the June 2011 release of EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM should have been replaced by the RF successor by 2020 or 2021 with the R3.

The Series III should not have been released at all.

The EF lenses that should have came out in these sequence but 2 years later as RF lenses.

2018

EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM
EF 600mm F4L IS III USM
EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS III USM
EF 70-200mm F4L IS II USM
2017

EF 85mm F1.4L IS USM
TS-E 50mm F2.8L Macro
TS-E 90mm F2.8L Macro
TS-E 135mm F4L Macro
2016

EF 16-35mm F2.8L III USM
EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM


----------



## AlanF (Apr 11, 2022)

dolina said:


> They did an Intel! Intel got stuck in a die shrink for about a decade...
> 
> Once Apple Silicon chips were revealed Intel all of a sudden can do die shrinks again.
> 
> ...


They had to release Series III as Sony also introduced the same optical designs and much lighter weights than Series II. Otherwise, Sony would have seemed years ahead.


----------



## dolina (Apr 11, 2022)

AlanF said:


> They had to release Series III as Sony also introduced the same optical designs and much lighter weights than Series II. Otherwise, Sony would have seemed years ahead.


Good point so perhaps advancing the RF system to year 2016?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2022)

dolina said:


> Good point so perhaps advancing the RF system to year 2016?


Presumably the EOS R was not ready for launch. No reason to release lenses that can't be used.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 11, 2022)

dolina said:


> I am referring to the Z 800/6.3 and RF 800/5.6 based on their price point, physical weight and f-number. Not the brands, companies or mirrorless systems they represent.
> 
> At a difference of 1/3rd stop, 1/2 physical weight and 1/3rd price point what would be the target use and who would be the target market?



Who would be the target market? Easy. For starters, anyone that doesn't own a Canon RF camera system and that's thinking of getting into that part of the photography scene. 

Let me rephrase what you said slightly:
- professional shooters that want to use 800mm lenses are going to pay 3 times as much for a Canon lens that also weighs twice as much because otherwise they won't have a lens that is professional.

What an insult to photographers everywhere your comment is.


----------



## Terry Danks (Apr 11, 2022)

It's been about 20 years since I jumped from N to C. It was over the issue of stabilization in long lenses back then. I haven't regretted that decision at all . . . . until now. 
Doubt I will be dumping my C stuff but I am intrigued by the possibility of adding the 800PF and a Z9.


----------



## dolina (Apr 11, 2022)

dilbert said:


> Let me rephrase what you said slightly:
> - professional shooters that want to use 800mm lenses are going to pay 3 times as much for a Canon lens that also weighs twice as much because otherwise they won't have a lens that is professional.
> 
> What an insult to photographers everywhere your comment is.


That's your interpretation? Did someone hit you on the head?

Those opting for the f/5.6 will get it because they need the extra 1/3rd stop of light. This is helpful for paid work.

When you're not being paid then that 1/3rd stop of more light is not worth paying 3x more or carry 2x the physical weight.

Same way of prioritization between a f/2.8 IS vs f/4 IS zoom lens. If money & weight is a concern then the 2.8 is bought more for paid work while the 4.0 bought more for personal use.

@Terry Danks got his thinking correct... buying the Z 800mm + Z9 body is cheaper than getting a RF 800/5.6. So for this instance it may be optimal to go dual system. Drawback is you need to learn Nikon & Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2022)

dolina said:


> Those opting for the f/5.6 will get it because they need the extra 1/3rd stop of light. This is helpful for paid work.


I really don't think 1/3 stop makes a difference with the cameras these lenses are used with. Especially 1/3 stop in specs, T-stops may tell a different story.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Apr 11, 2022)

dolina said:


> Another way of looking at the Z 800mm 6.3 vs RF 800mm 5.6 is that the market positioning of the two lenses.
> 
> Nikon is for primarily an outdoor, wildlife and bird photography lens that generally does not generate any revenue for working photographers.
> 
> ...


Nikon lenses don’t primarily generate revenue but Canon does? Wow. Just wow. Can’t believe I just read that.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 11, 2022)

Judging from the photo posted with the annoucement, the rig looks terribly heavy. It takes a Valkyrie to hoist it!


----------



## dolina (Apr 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I really don't think 1/3 stop makes a difference with the cameras these lenses are used with. Especially 1/3 stop in specs, T-stops may tell a different story.


My description is for market position of each respective company's 800mm.

How would Canon justify 3x the price & 2x the physical weight for 1/3rd more speed?

For the price of a RF 800/5.6 you can buy a Z 800mm & Z9 body and have change for gasoline.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> Those opting for the f/5.6 will get it because they need the extra 1/3rd stop of light. This is helpful for paid work.




Given that the only person that responded to my question about who was paid to take telephoto shots of animals wasn't you, and that they're very keen on using this new Nikon lens, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your assertion is simply wrong.


----------



## dolina (Apr 12, 2022)

dilbert said:


> Given that the only person that responded to my question about who was paid to take telephoto shots of animals wasn't you, and that they're very keen on using this new Nikon lens, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your assertion is simply wrong.


If the pay aint that great why then spend extra for top-end gear?

If this was 2008 and I had to make a choice between a $12k EF800m 4.5kg lens vs $4k Z 800mm 2.35kg lens I'd go with the Z. The $4k price is 1/3rd the price of a EF800mm back in 2008 in the same manner the $6.5k price of the Z is 1/3rd the price of the 2022 RF800mm 5.6 lens.

I don't get paid for my photography and "environmentalists" steal my photos for their fund raising. I'm not inclined to carry a lens 2x the weight for a hobby and be robbed

Now, if I was paid well at a predictable intervals then the EF800mm would be more attractive.

On BH & Adorama the #1 selling lens is the Z 800mm largely because of the price point and weight.

There is a large market for long slow lens that are f/6.3, f/7.1 & f/11. Bravo on Canon and Nikon in recognizing and trying to eat into Sigma and Tamron's market.

On Canon's part it is smart of them to reuse a lens design for 3 unique lens SKUs. This would allow them to have some flexibility of lowering the price from $17k to something closer to $6.5k.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> My description is for market position of each respective company's 800mm.
> 
> How would Canon justify 3x the price & 2x the physical weight for 1/3rd more speed?
> 
> For the price of a RF 800/5.6 you can buy a Z 800mm & Z9 body and have change for gasoline.


This is your justification, not Canon’s or Nikon’s, and it’s ridiculous.

Canon chose to put minimal design effort into the 800/5.6. They took the recent 400/2.8 designed for DSLRs that have an f/5.6 aperture constraint for AF, and built a 2x TC into it, making it an 800/5.6. Nikon designed a new lens for MILCs. 

Try this for market positions: Canon’s 800/5.6 is aimed at photographers who generate revenue, Nikon’s 800/6.3 is aimed at photographers who generate revenue and want more of that revenue to be profit.

In your mind, is it also the case that Nikon’s pro-level flagship MILC Z9 is not intended for revenue-generating photography, but Canon’s pro-level *non*-flagship MILC R3 is, because it costs 30% more than the Z9.

This is really simple. The market position for these lenses and bodies are people and companies who take pictures and can afford them. Especially today, when the professional photography market is rapidly eroding.

Canon has around three times the ILC market share of Nikon. They likely believe they can charge high prices and their market dominance will ensure sales at those prices. Nikon used to have nearly the same market share as Canon, they lost over half of it in recent years. They likely believe an aggressive pricing strategy will help win some back.


----------



## dolina (Apr 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> In your mind, is it also the case that Nikon’s pro-level flagship MILC Z9 is not intended for revenue-generating photography, but Canon’s pro-level *non*-flagship MILC R3 is, because it costs 30% more than the Z9.


I said "most" and not "all".

I only mention the Z9 as the matching body to highlight the price gap between _just_ a Canon lens vs a Nikon lens + pro body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> I said "most" and not "all".
> 
> I only mention the Z9 as the matching body to highlight the price gap between _just_ a Canon lens vs a Nikon lens + pro body.


You said, "Market position," as in a definition of the group for which the product is designed by the manufacturer. To suggest that Canon designed the 800/5.6 as a lens that, "Generally generates revenue for working photographers," while Nikon designed the 800/6.3 as a lens that, "Generally does not generate any revenue for working photographers," is asinine. Please just acknowledge your mistake and move on.


----------



## dolina (Apr 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You said, "Market position," as in a definition of the group for which the product is designed by the manufacturer. To suggest that Canon designed the 800/5.6 as a lens that, "Generally generates revenue for working photographers," while Nikon designed the 800/6.3 as a lens that, "Generally does not generate any revenue for working photographers," is asinine. Please just acknowledge your mistake and move on.



Market position as of the announcement of the Z 800mm. I am writing this as of today's market condition.

The word "generally" is an adverb that means "in most cases; usually" or "in general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions." By using that word I acknowledge that these are not absolute use cases. I say this as I often use my EF 800/5.6 to do portraits of people. Why? Because I can and it gives a unique aesthetic. I am told I can use an extension tube on it to act like a amateurish macro lens

How would Canon market the RF 800/5.6 that is 1.42x the physical weight, 2.62x the MSRP but 1/3rd of a stop faster as compared to the Z 800mm? Sales forecast of that lens would now be changed largely because of the recent introduction of the Z 800/6.3

On BH Photo & Adorama you can see how it has impacted the market for 800m lenses. The Z 800/6.3 is the most popular mirrorless lens largely because of the price & weight.

Why else would this Nikon lens be that talked about on non-Nikon forums?

Many here may scoff at the Z 800/6.3 because its 1/3rd slower or it being a Nikon but I've spoken to many lens owners that have 3kg or heavier lenses and I have yet to hear anyone preferring something heavier unless it's that cheap.

Everyone replying to me should not take offense about which brand produces a better product. Been on Canon for nearly 3 decades and spoke to Sony, Pentax and Nikon users. It's just basically a see saw. One brand's product/service will be superior for a few months/years then it goes to a different company.

I recall a conversation with a Nikon photographer back in 2004 where in they were admiring the ISO performance of the EOS 10D. He was telling me that working Nikon photogs who make a living with their cameras were often forced to sell their system as it did not have the light sensitivity of Canon.

Back in 2015 Canon users were talking about how much better Sony's full frame image sensors were vs those of Canon. It has better ISO sensitivty.

Now... Nikon has the Z 800/6.3... a 800mm lens prefered by a lot of wildlife/bird photographers based on the BHPhoto & Adorama rankings. Back in 2008-2012 the EF 800/5.6 was the preferred wildlife/bird lens.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> Back in 2008-2012 the EF 800/5.6 was the preferred wildlife/bird lens.


I can't imagine the EF 800 f/5.6 ever being a preferred wildlife lens as for as long as I can remember the occasions I looked at it I was always recommended a 600 f/4.0 and a 1.4X TC as this combo always performed better. The Nikon 800 f/6.3 PF is the only time I have seen a buzz for a professional 800mm lens and heard people talk of owning one instead of a 600 f/4.0 + 1.4x TC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> Market position as of the announcement of the Z 800mm. I am writing this as of today's market condition.
> 
> The word "generally" is an adverb that means "in most cases; usually" or "in general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions." By using that word I acknowledge that these are not absolute use cases. I say this as I often use my EF 800/5.6 to do portraits of people. Why? Because I can and it gives a unique aesthetic. I am told I can use an extension tube on it to act like a amateurish macro lens


Sorry, I missed where Nikon announced that the 800/6.3 was intended 'generally' to not generate any revenue for photographers using it. What they actually said was, "_High operability and superior rendering performance support reliable use of this lens by many users ranging from advanced amateurs to professional photographers._" Maybe you think professional photographers don't actually generate revenue? Lol.




dolina said:


> How would Canon market the RF 800/5.6 that is 1.42x the physical weight, 2.62x the MSRP but 1/3rd of a stop faster as compared to the Z 800mm? Sales forecast of that lens would now be changed largely because of the recent introduction of the Z 800/6.3


They will market it to Canon users. Same as every other Canon lens. Given that Canon users comprise about half of the ILC market, that's quite a reasonable strategy. Probably your personal forecast for sales of the Canon 800/5.6 have changed. But given that Canon knew about the Nikon 800/6.3 well in advance of launching their 800/5.6 and 1200/8, I'm sure Canon's sales forecasts took it into account. Quite likely that's one reason for the high prices, to allow ROI even with low unit sales. I don't have to go out on a limb to suggest that Canon knows more about forecasting sales of 800mm lenses than someone who happens to use one and post their opinions on a rumors forum.


----------



## dolina (Apr 12, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I can't imagine the EF 800 f/5.6 ever being a preferred wildlife lens as for as long as I can remember the occasions I looked at it I was always recommended a 600 f/4.0 and a 1.4X TC as this combo always performed better. The Nikon 800 f/6.3 PF is the only time I have seen a buzz for a professional 800mm lens and heard people talk of owning one instead of a 600 f/4.0 + 1.4x TC.



Largely because of the physical weight, more modern material science, IS & USM.

A lot has changed between 1999 & 2008.

To people like me its the difference between leaving it at home or bring it around with me.

*Generally* this is not always the case. ;-)

Z 800/6.3 is that talked about because its priced like a less than 2.6kg lens. It's very cheap relative to its use case.

As I travel by plane with a EF800/5.6 I keep in mind the 4.5kg of that lens When I saw the 2.385kg weight & $6.5k price point I knew it will be wildlly popular even when it's 1/3rd slower.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> when it's 1/3rd slower.


1/3rd of a stop slower, not 1/3rd slower. And between a f/5.6 and f/6.3 lens they could have equal light gathering depending on optical design.


----------



## dolina (Apr 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, I missed where Nikon announced that the 800/6.3 was intended 'generally' to not generate any revenue for photographers using it. What they actually said was, "_High operability and superior rendering performance support reliable use of this lens by many users ranging from advanced amateurs to professional photographers._" Maybe you think professional photographers don't actually generate revenue? Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> They will market it to Canon users. Same as every other Canon lens. Given that Canon users comprise about half of the ILC market, that's quite a reasonable strategy. Probably your personal forecast for sales of the Canon 800/5.6 have changed. But given that Canon knew about the Nikon 800/6.3 well in advance of launching their 800/5.6 and 1200/8, I'm sure Canon's sales forecasts took it into account. Quite likely that's one reason for the high prices, to allow ROI even with low unit sales. I don't have to go out on a limb to suggest that Canon knows more about forecasting sales of 800mm lenses than someone who happens to use one and post their opinions on a rumors forum.



You're reading too much into what I said and you're looking for offense when none is intended.

If ever you decide to buy any of the 800mm lenses feeel free to share some photos from it.


----------



## dolina (Apr 12, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> 1/3rd of a stop slower, not 1/3rd slower. And between a f/5.6 and f/6.3 lens they could have equal light gathering depending on optical design.


 do something more constructive with your time like buying that 800mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> You're reading too much into what I said and you're looking for offense when none is intended.
> 
> If ever you decide to buy any of the 800mm lenses feeel free to share some photos from it.


You're the one bringing up "market position" repeatedly. It's a specious argument with relevance only in your own head.

Personally, I have no intention of buying an 800mm lens from Nikon or Canon. Not Nikon because I don't want to run two systems, and for the other genres I shoot Canon's offerings are differentiating (e.g. TS-E 17, MP-E 65). Not Canon because I have a 600/4, and with a 1.4x TC that becomes an 840mm f/5.6 (which is lighter than your 800/5.6 with a longer FL and the same f/number).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> do something more constructive with your time like buying that 800mm.


I already bought it


----------



## 2 cents (Apr 13, 2022)

Haven't looked at Nikon, or any other brand for that matter for the past 30+ years. When I was starting out I was weighing either a used Nikon F3, or Canon T90. Got the Canon.
Prices are ridiculous, so are some lens choices. This Nikon lens grabbing my attention and making wonder things. May not switch as I am so heavily invested.... but who knows.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> My description is for market position of each respective company's 800mm.
> 
> How would Canon justify 3x the price & 2x the physical weight for 1/3rd more speed?



Canon will charge for the lens what they think people will pay for it, some of that will be based on how much it cost them to develop and make it.

Nikon has a newer design that's cheaper. Kudos to Nikon. If Nikon can repeat that with their other telephoto lenses then Canon's got a real problem to address and it won't be a quick about-ship either.

But now that you've told us that you have a Canon 800/5.6 it is abundantly clear why you're trying to denigrate the Nikon lens.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 13, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Haven't looked at Nikon, or any other brand for that matter for the past 30+ years. When I was starting out I was weighing either a used Nikon F3, or Canon T90. Got the Canon.
> Prices are ridiculous, so are some lens choices. This Nikon lens grabbing my attention and making wonder things. May not switch as I am so heavily invested.... but who knows.


I have a Canon RF 800 f/11 - 15 % of the price of the Nikon and just over half its weight, and works fine. The RF 100-400mm is even more ridiculously cheap and very sharp. Canon has captured the mass market and has top notch pricey lenses for those who want them. I am not running down Nikon, they produce great gear, maybe better than Canon's. But does Canon really have a problem? I don't really think so. They also have new designs that are even cheaper.


dilbert said:


> Nikon has a newer design that's cheaper. Kudos to Nikon. If Nikon can repeat that with their other telephoto lenses then Canon's got a real problem to address and it won't be a quick about-ship either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2022)

dilbert said:


> If Nikon can repeat that with their other telephoto lenses then Canon's got a real problem to address and it won't be a quick about-ship either.


That's like saying Toyota has a real problem with their Mirai. Their what? Yeah.



AlanF said:


> But does Canon really have a problem? I don't really think so. They also have new designs that are even cheaper.


A few years ago, Sony was full of innovation and people here were convinced that Canon had a problem. Convinced to the point that the mods added "d00med" to the four-letter-word list. What actually happened was that Sony gained some market share, Canon gained some market share (more than Sony, recently), and Nikon suffered big losses. In spite of the CR predictions of problems for Canon, it turned out they knew exactly what they were doing.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 13, 2022)

Just an observation about likely future developments...

When EF lenses were produced by 3rd parties, it reduced a lot of angst among Canon fans because they weren't reliant solely on Canon's lens lineup. What 2-foot-long, waterproof underwater macro probe lens 24mm? Laowa had you covered. A $600 35mm f/1.8 95 percent as good as the Canon and Sigma f/1.4s? Tamron had you covered.

But now with the RF mount being ignored by most 3rd party lens makers - especially those making AF lenses - the Canon fans are more depending on Canon's lens selection and their pricing, and I think that will continue to elevate the concern about relative comparisons.


As an aside:
The old EF mount was many orders of magnitude easier to reverse engineer. The RF mount protocols are believed to be carried via a communications protocol that can implement encryption (patents show this, but it is unknown if it's actually been employed). This means that 3rd parties will likely continue to make EF mount lenses with RF physical mounts, which will limit compatibility to those features found with adapted EF glass. Meaning no extra IBIS stops, control ring control, additional data reporting.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 14, 2022)

Looks like it’ll come just after next weeks FW 2.0 for the Z9. Which I have to say looks like a huge update…even giving it a 120hz EVF.


----------



## Nkosi (Apr 15, 2022)

I’m surprised that this many users here are interested in PF lenses. I’ll give them their due, they’re light but they have weird bokeh against foilage, really weird and so far they have been optically inferior.

I think Canon has taken the right route, those cheap f11 lenses will grab a better audience and the 800 f5.6 is aimed squarely at a different crowd altogether.

Btw, I’m not a Canon user and have no interest in becoming one, but admire them from afar.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 15, 2022)

Nkosi said:


> I’m surprised that this many users here are interested in PF lenses. I’ll give them their due, they’re light but they have weird bokeh against foilage, really weird and so far they have been optically inferior.
> 
> I think Canon has taken the right route, those cheap f11 lenses will grab a better audience and the 800 f5.6 is aimed squarely at a different crowd altogether.
> 
> Btw, I’m not a Canon user and have no interest in becoming one, but admire them from afar.


The Canon cheap f11 lenses use the same PF/DO technology as Nikon (as do the expensive Canon 400mm DOs). So, why is it right for Canon and optically inferior for Nikon? I’ve used both Canon’s and Nikon’s DO/PF, and if Canon bring’s out a high spec DO RF telephoto I’ll probably be on the pre-order list


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Canon cheap f11 lenses use the same PF/DO technology as Nikon (as do the expensive Canon 400mm DOs). So, why is it right for Canon and optically inferior for Nikon? I’ve used both Canon’s and Nikon’s DO/PF, and if Canon bring’s out a high spec DO RF telephoto I’ll probably be on the pre-order list


Fanboyism...


----------



## Nkosi (Apr 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Canon cheap f11 lenses use the same PF/DO technology as Nikon (as do the expensive Canon 400mm DOs). So, why is it right for Canon and optically inferior for Nikon? I’ve used both Canon’s and Nikon’s DO/PF, and if Canon bring’s out a high spec DO RF telephoto I’ll probably be on the pre-order list


I didn’t know the f11 lenses we DO/PF lenses but the 400 f4 DO was one of the reasons I briefly considered moving to Canon, but it’s bokeh put me off.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 15, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Fanboyism...


Right. The one weakness of the diffraction technology is the loss of contrast against a strongly backlit subject. But, when you are doing nature photography you need on the whole the light behind you to bring out colour, contrast and detail.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 15, 2022)

Nkosi said:


> I didn’t know the f11 lenses we DO/PF lenses but the 400 f4 DO was one of the reasons I briefly considered moving to Canon, but it’s bokeh put me off.


Several of us CRs bought in to Nikon because the 500 PF is such a cracking good lens. Maybe our use isn’t bothered much by weird bokeh, if there is any.


----------



## Nkosi (Apr 15, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Fanboyism...


My post was reasonable without attacking anyone. Your response makes no sense and is rude.
Just an fyi those were my lenses. Nikkor 500 f4 and Sigma 150-600, which I used for years.

So what exactly am I fanboy of?


----------



## Nkosi (Apr 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Several of us CRs bought in to Nikon because the 500 PF is such a cracking good lens. Maybe our use isn’t bothered much by weird bokeh, if there is any.


That’s reasonable, I don’t get some of the over the top posts attacking Canon and calling them embarrassing. But I guess, that is the internet.

I like the idea of DO/PF lenses but so far have always been turned off by their rendering. They do hit a sweet spot of price, weight and size.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 15, 2022)

Nkosi said:


> My post was reasonable without attacking anyone. Your response makes no sense and is rude.
> Just an fyi those were my lenses. Nikkor 500 f4 and Sigma 150-600, which I used for years.
> 
> So what exactly am I fanboy of?


In defence of @Del Paso he, like me, would have assumed that you knew that the RF 600 f11 and RF 800 f/11 are DO lenses and would have been equally surprised by your post.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 15, 2022)

Nkosi said:


> My post was reasonable without attacking anyone. Your response makes no sense and is rude.
> Just an fyi those were my lenses. Nikkor 500 f4 and Sigma 150-600, which I used for years.
> 
> So what exactly am I fanboy of?


Sorry if I sounded or was rude, but I really didn't understand your criticism of Nikon, and your praise of technically similar Canons.
No offense meant!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 15, 2022)

No one has ever commented that the bokeh from my 500 PF looks weird. I do get told what lovely detail there is in the fur, scales, or feathers.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 16, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> The old EF mount was many orders of magnitude easier to reverse engineer. The RF mount protocols are believed to be carried via a communications protocol that can implement encryption (patents show this, but it is unknown if it's actually been employed).


The RF mount uses the same pins for the same purposes as EF. It has additional pins for a high speed serial data channel which can be used for additional communications. A good example would be lens stored corrections downloaded to the body for in camera JPEG processing. In theory the EF data pins could be ignored and all communications pushed through the new serial channel. But I doubt any RF lenses are doing this, or that Canon has even provisioned for this in camera body firmware.



[email protected] said:


> This means that 3rd parties will likely continue to make EF mount lenses with RF physical mounts, which will limit compatibility to those features found with adapted EF glass. Meaning no extra IBIS stops, control ring control, additional data reporting.


There are already 3rd party EF-to-RF lens adapters with the control ring. The control ring is almost certainly going through the high speed serial pins. This either means there is no encryption, or the encryption is weak and already cracked. I'm not sure why Sigma/Tamron/Tokina are dragging their feet on RF lenses. But I'm reasonably sure it has nothing to do with reverse engineering the mount.

It's entirely possible that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina feel like they have time because generally speaking EF lenses mount and function perfectly on RF via adapters. You can't say the same for A-mount or F-mount. Does it really make sense to take something like an ART 50mm f/1.4 and re-tool manufacturing to make an RF only version with a control ring? Or does it make more business sense to wait until the RF market grows and you can do something unique, i.e. a new lens design with improved performance, or size/weight, or maybe f/1.2? If you just repackage an existing design you could go through the expense and not sell one lens more than you would have anyway. Because right now nobody with an RF body is hesitating to adapt an ART 50mm if they really want one.

We are starting to see unique lens designs from 3rd party companies for E-mount. Hopefully we will soon start to see the same for RF.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 17, 2022)

Anybody know if there is an adapter for this? Shame on you, greedy Canon!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 18, 2022)

scottkinfw said:


> Anybody know if there is an adapter for this? Shame on you, greedy Canon!


You can adapt EF lenses to Z and it would be possible to adapt RF lenses to Z. It is not possible to adapt Z lenses to RF due to the mount being larger and closer to the sensor. If you want/need a 800mm lens and this one appeals to you then you might as well get a camera to go with it... with a camera to go with it, it's still cheaper than the RF 800mm f/5.6.


----------



## Otara (Apr 18, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> You can adapt EF lenses to Z and it would be possible to adapt RF lenses to Z. It is not possible to adapt Z lenses to RF due to the mount being larger and closer to the sensor. If you want/need a 800mm lens and this one appeals to you then you might as well get a camera to go with it... with a camera to go with it, it's still cheaper than the RF 800mm f/5.6.



Id do without or switch entirely rather than do 2 systems, even for one special lens. Cost isnt the main issue in my view, at these price levels.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 18, 2022)

Otara said:


> Id do without or switch entirely rather than do 2 systems, even for one special lens. Cost isnt the main issue in my view, at these price levels.


I would rather have two systems than switch. There will always be lenses on both sides that I want or that are so specialised that the other wont make. Canon is all but required for photographing jumping spiders for instance. And Nikon have the best wildlife lenses with the 400 f/2.8 TC, 500 PF, and 800 PF. I will be using my 100-400 S with my 800 PF, though that 100-400 S could just as easily be a RF 100-500 on a R5. At the end of the day it is CF Express cards full of images getting dumped into Capture One, edited, then printed. And no one is going to tell between two pictures I am selling if one was from Canon or the other was from Nikon.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 18, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I would rather have two systems than switch. There will always be lenses on both sides that I want or that are so specialised that the other wont make. Canon is all but required for photographing jumping spiders for instance. And Nikon have the best wildlife lenses with the 400 f/2.8 TC, 500 PF, and 800 PF. I will be using my 100-400 S with my 800 PF, though that 100-400 S could just as easily be a RF 100-500 on a R5. At the end of the day it is CF Express cards full of images getting dumped into Capture One, edited, then printed. And no one is going to tell between two pictures I am selling if one was from Canon or the other was from Nikon.


I happily shot with two systems for the first year of covid when I wasn't travelling. The advantage of a single system is that when we travel abroad, my wife and I can take two bodies, types of lenses, shared battereis, a pair of back up chargers, cables etc, so our lenses and cameras back each other up if a lens or/and a camera fails in the middle of nowhere. Usefully now with in-body charging, our computer chargers are back ups.


----------



## entoman (Apr 18, 2022)

Nkosi said:


> I’m surprised that this many users here are interested in PF lenses. I’ll give them their due, they’re light but they have weird bokeh against foilage, really weird and so far they have been optically inferior.


Can you post some images demonstrating the "weird bokeh against foliage" please?

My experience is that bokeh against foliage often looks very weird even with normal optics, such as my EF 100-400mm. The reason for this particular weird bokeh usually has nothing to do with the optical construction, it's caused instead by heat haze, which can cause major deterioration in image quality when photographing mid-distance subjects on warm days.


----------



## photographer (Apr 18, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> no extra IBIS stops, control ring control, additional data reporting.


Personally, I don't need a ring control and data reporting. Canon's top portrait lenses (RF 85 & 50 1.2) are not stabilized either. And for example, a lighter and smaller (or/and 1.2) Sigma Art lenses would be welcome. Especially 105 mm.


----------



## Otara (Apr 19, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I would rather have two systems than switch. There will always be lenses on both sides that I want or that are so specialised that the other wont make. Canon is all but required for photographing jumping spiders for instance. And Nikon have the best wildlife lenses with the 400 f/2.8 TC, 500 PF, and 800 PF. I will be using my 100-400 S with my 800 PF, though that 100-400 S could just as easily be a RF 100-500 on a R5. At the end of the day it is CF Express cards full of images getting dumped into Capture One, edited, then printed. And no one is going to tell between two pictures I am selling if one was from Canon or the other was from Nikon.



No, but I will be able to tell the difference between the bad shots I make as I seem to always take some time to get up to speed with a new system, let alone switching back and forth. I did switch a few times earlier on, and Im much more reluctant to do so now, even new cameras within a system can take me a while.

But Im by no means a professional, and for me the main advantage of weight would also be negated with it also needing the camera etc.


----------



## ISv (Apr 19, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> No one has ever commented that the bokeh from my 500 PF looks weird. I do get told what lovely detail there is in the fur, scales, or feathers.


Because you know what to expect from your tools... And use them according to the situation.


----------



## ISv (Apr 19, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> You can adapt EF lenses to Z and it would be possible to adapt RF lenses to Z. It is not possible to adapt Z lenses to RF due to the mount being larger and closer to the sensor. If you want/need a 800mm lens and this one appeals to you then you might as well get a camera to go with it... with a camera to go with it, it's still cheaper than the RF 800mm f/5.6.


"If you want/need a 800mm lens and this one appeals to you then you might as well get a camera to go with it... with a camera to go with it, it's still cheaper than the RF 800mm f/5.6"

Exactly this point is doing this discussion to stay so long on the top of the "Trending....". Canon did what they did and Nikon did what they did. The judging will came from the market (and I don't think Canon has to "shiver" because of a single lens (or few - doesn't matter!).
BTW I'm a Nikon shooter as some of the guys here know for "a while". What I would like to say may not sediment well to some people here but Canon put such a price on that lens that made it so controversial! Bokeh? - is the quality of the bokeh doing *that* big price difference? And BTW - because the bokeh may not always make that big difference (but you still have some restrictions!!!) if you use the lens properly means that that technology is worth of it - it has it's advantages and for many guys they are important!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 19, 2022)

Otara said:


> No, but I will be able to tell the difference between the bad shots I make as I seem to always take some time to get up to speed with a new system, let alone switching back and forth. I did switch a few times earlier on, and Im much more reluctant to do so now, even new cameras within a system can take me a while.
> 
> But Im by no means a professional, and for me the main advantage of weight would also be negated with it also needing the camera etc.


I am very quick to pick up a new system. The only thing that’ll slow me down usually is finding some menu option but that isn’t something I’ll do out in the field as I’ll have the cameras set to my wildlife settings before leaving and test them on my snakes and cats before leaving the house.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 19, 2022)

ISv said:


> Because you know what to expect from your tools... And use them according to the situation.


Pretty much. I know with the 500 PF there is some light that looks naff so I take a step to the left or right and it solves the problem in the EVF. If the 800 has any problem with direct sun I can fix it with my position. I also know that even with a 800mm you can get bad bokeh if your subject is too close to the background, as before you just move and would need to do the same if it was PF or not.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 19, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I am very quick to pick up a new system. The only thing that’ll slow me down usually is finding some menu option but that isn’t something I’ll do out in the field as I’ll have the cameras set to my wildlife settings before leaving and test them on my snakes and cats before leaving the house.


Snakes?
I hope you are not speaking of pet-vipers!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 19, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Snakes?
> I hope you are not speaking of pet-vipers!


I have a Ball Python(Arch Mage Empress Prime Minister Willow Hissington the Third) and a Burmese Python(Mr Cuddles). Looking for a carpet and blood Python next.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 19, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I have a Ball Python(Arch Mage Empress Prime Minister Willow Hissington the Third) and a Burmese Python(Mr Cuddles). Looking for a carpet and blood Python next.


I'm reassured!
Edit: a little bit....


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 19, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's a temptation to switch gear every time another manufacturer comes out with something better, but they leapfrog each other. It's taken Nikon 18 months to equal (better in some ways, worse in others) the AF on Canon's cheaper R5, and the Z 800/6.3 will have limited availability for quite some time. In 18 months time, Canon will undoubtedly have a new generation of bodies and new lenses. So jump to Nikon now and then jump again?


The lenses will stay way longer ;P!!
The Z9 sounds really great! Also there is this nice 200-500 5.6, and 500 5.6 PF and now the 800 6.3 PF.. and this crazy and expensive 400 + 1.4! 
What are Canons options? WAY MORE EXPENSIVE and some of them are crippled (100-500 with 7.1). 

Even the two new 20k€+ leneses doesn't have build in TCs! 

If I could.... I would switch!


----------



## SteveC (Apr 19, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I have a Ball Python(Arch Mage Empress Prime Minister Willow Hissington the Third) and a Burmese Python(Mr Cuddles). Looking for a carpet and blood Python next.


Not familiar with the blood python, the other three have excellent temperament. Some can find the sheer size of a Burmese python more than they can actually cope with, but you've obviously passed that test.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 19, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Not familiar with the blood python, the other three have excellent temperament. Some can find the sheer size of a Burmese python more than they can actually cope with, but you've obviously passed that test.


Mr Curdles is huge but he has is very calm and chill. He is a excellent snake ambassador.

As for blood Pythons you should imagine a Burmese sized snake that is about 1/3rd the length but just as thick and with a guarantee that it’ll bite. They are not beginner snakes, but are beautiful and can be worked with into good pets.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 19, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> The lenses will stay way longer ;P!!
> The Z9 sounds really great! Also there is this nice 200-500 5.6, and 500 5.6 PF and now the 800 6.3 PF.. and this crazy and expensive 400 + 1.4!
> What are Canons options? WAY MORE EXPENSIVE and some of them are crippled (100-500 with 7.1).
> 
> ...


The RF 100-500mm crippled = pure nonsense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> Also there is this nice … 800 6.3 PF.
> 
> What are Canons options? WAY MORE EXPENSIVE and some of them are crippled (100-500 with 7.1).


So the 1/3-stop slower than f/5.6 Nikon lens is nice, but the 2/3-stop slower Canon lens is crippled.

Are you really oblivious to how asinine that sounds?


----------



## tron (Apr 21, 2022)

RF100-500 is not crippled! It is superb. And this comes from someone that does not trust the EOS RF system 100% for birds in flight but its IQ is excellent. It can also be used as a portable 1000mm when there is enough light. It is very versatile.

I could say the 200-500 is a little crippled since it is much bigger and heavier and its IQ is reported to be variable. I prefer to carry my R5/100-500 in the bag next to D850/500PF rather than getting this lens. Actually I have used this bag combination before for a few days.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 21, 2022)

tron said:


> RF100-500 is not crippled! It is superb. And this comes that does from someone that not trust the EOS RF system 100% for birds in flight but its IQ is excellent. It can also be used as a portable 1000mm when there is enough light. It is very versatile.
> 
> I could say the 200-500 is a little crippled since it is much bigger and heavier and its IQ is reported to be variable. I prefer to carry my R5/100-500 in the bag next to D850/500PF rather than getting this lens. Actually I have used this bag combination before for a few days.


The RF 100-500 is so fantastic I would own it and a R5 instead of a 100-400S on a second Z9 body if it had been available at the time of ordering. That extra 100mm without needing a TC would make a fantastic second lens to the 800 or even a 600 f/4.0.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2022)

The RF 100-500mm, like the 500mm PF, is one of the great lenses of all time! I am so lucky to have used both.


----------



## ericbowles (Apr 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Right. The one weakness of the diffraction technology is the loss of contrast against a strongly backlit subject. But, when you are doing nature photography you need on the whole the light behind you to bring out colour, contrast and detail.


Here is an example of the PF lens bokeh with the Nikon Z7ii, 500mm PF lens, a 1.4 TC and the FTZ adapter. As you can see, the specular highlights are a bit amoeba-like rather than round and pleasing as they are with my 600 f/4. This problem is pretty consistent with a backlit subject and specular highlights. There is also a small loss of contrast but that's easily fixed. I don't think this is a show stopper and have the 800mm PF ordered, but it does illustrate the challenge. It's not a problem at all with traditional frontlit subjects. Of course, the idea that the Nikon cameras struggle with birds in flight is BS.


----------



## ericbowles (May 11, 2022)

entoman said:


> Can you post some images demonstrating the "weird bokeh against foliage" please?
> 
> My experience is that bokeh against foliage often looks very weird even with normal optics, such as my EF 100-400mm. The reason for this particular weird bokeh usually has nothing to do with the optical construction, it's caused instead by heat haze, which can cause major deterioration in image quality when photographing mid-distance subjects on warm days.


Here are two images with the 800mm PF. PF lenses can have an odd bokeh from specular highlights, but it's a very limited case that I have only seen with photos of backlit shorebirds using the 500 PF. I have not tested the 800mm PF in that scenario.





Here is a 100% crop from the second image


----------



## dolina (Sep 18, 2022)

ericbowles said:


> Here are two images with the 800mm PF. PF lenses can have an odd bokeh from specular highlights, but it's a very limited case that I have only seen with photos of backlit shorebirds using the 500 PF. I have not tested the 800mm PF in that scenario.
> View attachment 203483
> 
> 
> ...


Good images.

TBH for 1/3rd the cost & 1/2 the weight of the original EF 800mm I see this as a winner even when it's 1/3rd stop slower.

Canon has slowed down two noteable lenses by 1/3rd stop.

- 200/1.8 to 200/2.0

- 50/1.0 to 50/1.2

For the purpose of comparison here's the weight of select RF L & EF L the long lenses


----------

