# Canon RF 1200mm Details Leak: Weighs only 0.25kg more than the RF 600mm f/4L IS USM



## [email protected] (Feb 23, 2022)

> Two days early, the press release details of the coming RF 1200mm f/8 L IS USM leaked, and there are a few pleasant surprises. First among them is that the lens weighs just a bit more the RF 600mm f/4 lens, which is already very light for that focal length. A person Digicame-Info believes was the author of the now-defunct Nokishita blog posted posted the press release detailing the specs.
> The minimum focus distance (MFD) is 4.3m, also roughly the same as the 600mm f/4, which means its maximum magnification will be twice that of the smaller lens. Doing the math, this means that a human head would completely fill the frame at MFD.
> 
> Not noted on the release are the lens dimensions.
> For those with a glutton for focal length, the 1200mm lens does take both the 1.4x and the 2x teleconverters, rendering as much as a 2400mm f/16 equivalent...



Continue reading...


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 23, 2022)

Asobinet (like digicam-info) has some more details and speculates that the new RF 800mm could "be a lens equipped with a specially designed magnifying optical system on the RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM"? Could make sense with the "metalic tube" at mount on both lenses?:





RF1200mm F8 L IS USMはRF600mm F4と拡大光学系を組み合わせている？


大型掲示板にキヤノンの新しいRFレンズ「RF1200mm F8 L IS USM」のプレスリリースと思われるP…




asobinet.com




translation: https://asobinet-com.translate.goog...r_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 23, 2022)

"Doing the math, this means that a human head would completely fill the frame at MFD"

My new portrait lens!


----------



## mbike999 (Feb 23, 2022)

...or just buy the 400 or 600 + TCs and have a much more versatile lens. Is this really a high priority relative to a 500, 300, 200-500? 

I guess it's a clever way to recycle 90% of the parts from existing optics


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 23, 2022)

This is truly amazing. I'll go to sleep and dream.


mbike999 said:


> ...or just buy the 400 or 600 + TCs and have a much more versatile lens. Is this really a high priority relative to a 500, 300, 200-500?
> 
> I guess it's a clever way to recycle 90% of the parts from existing optics


Sorry but I see it as much more exciting than that.

Jack


----------



## mbike999 (Feb 23, 2022)

Jack Douglas said:


> This is truly amazing. I'll go to sleep and dream.
> 
> Sorry but I see it as much more exciting than that.
> 
> Jack


I guess. I think a compact 800 PF is much more interesting versus recycling EF designs


----------



## DanCarr (Feb 23, 2022)

It says it uses the same “front section optical design as the 600mm f/4”. I’m sure we will find out that the 800mm uses the front section of the 400mm f/2.8. It even looks like it if you look at the photos. They seem to have stuck some sort of magnifying tube/2x TC onto both of them.

Im intrigued. But it does seem like a pair of niche lenses. They will have to be a lot sharper than their original 400/600 + TC combinations for anyone to want to give up that focal length flexibility. Are there really that many people complaining about the iq of the 600mm + 2x TC? You are really fighting atmospheric issues at that focal length anyway, unless you are shooting small birds at a short distance.

I can’t wait for someone to perform some comparative tests!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 23, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> I guess. I think a compact 800 PF is much more interesting versus recycling EF designs


OK, but I'm a Canonite and presently do most of my shots at 800, although F8, as is. I'd be more interested in the 800 if it's light but can't afford it anyway. That's why I dream.  

Jack


----------



## mbike999 (Feb 23, 2022)

Jack Douglas said:


> OK, but I'm a Canonite and presently do most of my shots at 800, although F8, as is. I'd be more interested in the 800 if it's light but can't afford it anyway. That's why I dream.
> 
> Jack


A compact DO lens would have been more interesting _to me._ That's all I'm saying. I have no doubt they will be stellar optics regardless.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 23, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> ...or just buy the 400 or 600 + TCs and have a much more versatile lens. Is this really a high priority relative to a 500, 300, 200-500?
> 
> I guess it's a clever way to recycle 90% of the parts from existing optics



With custom "magnifier design" specifically made for the lens(es), the optical result should be (hopefully considerable?) better then using a "generic" 2x extender on the lens(es).
But I'm sure we will be seeing lots of practical comparisons telling us more about that...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 23, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> ...or just buy the 400 or 600 + TCs and have a much more versatile lens. Is this really a high priority relative to a 500, 300, 200-500?
> 
> I guess it's a clever way to recycle 90% of the parts from existing optics


1) It would not be as sharp
2) Anyone who can afford the RF 1200 f/8 probably already has the other two


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 23, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> I guess. I think a compact 800 PF is much more interesting versus recycling EF designs


That is basically what the RF 800 f/11 is


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 23, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> A compact DO lens would have been more interesting _to me._ That's all I'm saying. I have no doubt they will be stellar optics regardless.


Nikon seems to have gone down that route of announcing development of 800mm f6.3 PF for their Z mount while Canon is sticking to a more conventional glass.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 23, 2022)

DanCarr said:


> It says it uses the same “front section optical design as the 600mm f/4”. I’m sure we will find out that the 800mm uses the front section of the 400mm f/2.8. It even looks like it if you look at the photos. They seem to have stuck some sort of magnifying tube/2x TC onto both of them.



My spidey sense got tingly too. That's why I went and looked up the 600mm optical design. The elements list show it's not just a TC glued onto the RF 600. Had Canon considered doing that, I don't think they'd expect to sell many, as there doesn't seem to be a downside to just carrying the 2x TC with the 600. I'm betting there's something more useful than an extended 600 to this. 

We'll just have to wait for 1) the full press release to come out, 2) Canon's chosen people to give reviews where they don't directly compare image quality between this and Canon's other big whites, and then 3) wait for the supply chain to unkink enough so that some of the forum dwellers are able to get some actual time with it. So, in other words, June .


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 23, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> My spidey sense got tingly too. That's why I went and looked up the 600mm optical design. The elements list show it's not just a TC glued onto the RF 600. Had Canon considered doing that, I don't think they'd expect to sell many, as there doesn't seem to be a downside to just carrying the 2x TC with the 600. I'm betting there's something more useful than an extended 600 to this.
> 
> We'll just have to wait for 1) the full press release to come out, 2) Canon's chosen people to give reviews where they don't directly compare image quality between this and Canon's other big whites, and then 3) wait for the supply chain to unkink enough so that some of the forum dwellers are able to get some actual time with it. So, in other words, June .


There would be no reason to ever do that.
It would make more sense for them so sell a 600 with a built-in 2x teleconverter unless people would be dumb enough to pay more for a 1200 f/8 that is no better than a 600 f/4 with a 2x teleconverter.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> There would be no reason to ever do that.
> It would make more sense for them so sell a 600 with a built-in 2x teleconverter unless people would be dumb enough to pay more for a 1200 f/8 that is no better than a 600 f/4 with a 2x teleconverter.


I would hope that a built-in, non-removable 2x TC that is designed for that specific lens would give better image quality than using the external, 'generic' 2x TC.
Having said that, I don't know how much improvement you could get when doing that and this is more about having fewer moving parts on a huge, heavy lens.


----------



## dolina (Feb 23, 2022)

At 7.4lbs or 3.36kg the RF 1200mm worth the upgrade.

EF 800mm is 4.5kg or 9.9lbs.

Will it cost below $17,000?


----------



## LDS (Feb 23, 2022)

When you mount a TC on a lens, aperture diffraction doesn't change for a given aperture size, the light loss is not caused by a smaller size of the diaphragm hole. Just like it doesn't change if you mount an ND filter. Then there are the TC own effects, and it can't create resolution where it does not exist.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 23, 2022)

Nokishita is dead? How that?


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> "Doing the math, this means that a human head would completely fill the frame at MFD"
> 
> My new portrait lens!


for portraits with eyes widened in fright, because the look in the dark mouth of this huge white bazooka 

now, for birders, they will have to decide whether they go for a 600mm f/4 plus 2x TC to be a bit more flexible or get the new 800mm. It'll also depend how well the latter one will work with TCs to get even more reach (and often catch more details of atmospheric blur )


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 23, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Nikon seems to have gone down that route of announcing development of 800mm f6.3 PF for their Z mount while Canon is sticking to a more conventional glass.


Maybe no good news for Nikon users, since diffraction optics lenses need a particularly precise production, and Nikon struggled even with their 300mm f/4 lens to deliver quality, as Roger Cicala from lensrentals found out:









The Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Test: Or Why I Don’t Test Just One Copy


As most of you know, we generally test multiple copies of a lens when we evaluate it, simply because we are so aware of copy-to-copy variation. But I got caught between a rock and a hard place this week. We received exactly one copy of the new Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens and [...]



www.lensrentals.com


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 23, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> Maybe no good news for Nikon users, since diffraction optics lenses need a particularly precise production, and Nikon struggled even with their 300mm f/4 lens to deliver quality, as Roger Cicala from lensrentals found out:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The 500 PF is near perfect. The 800 PF is a further generation ahead. Canon's 400 DO f/4.0 L was crap and the mark 2 is considered fantastic.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 23, 2022)

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the possibility that these lenses are intended not only for still photographers but also and more importantly for wildlife videographers. I recall a PBS program (Nature or Nova) about wolf packs in the arctic. The cameraman had what looked like a Canon 800 f/5.6 in front of something by Arri. He could have used three times the reach.


----------



## efmshark (Feb 23, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Continue reading...


It weighs only 0.25Kg more and costs only $25K more...


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 23, 2022)

Looking at the RF 600 diagram it has the same two fluorite and single Super UD as this 1200 spec list says. I believe the single UD is the very front element. I'd assume that the 1200 will look identical from the two vertical hash lines forward and then the rear smaller elements will be different. (Purple is Fluorite, Green is Super UD.

I still don't think this is just a RF 600 with 2xTC elements tacked on but it is certainly along those lines...but won't be a complete clone. Considering the MFD is still 4.5m means this isn't a typical 1200mm design like the 1200L was and this won't be nearly as long...that thing had a 14m MFD 

RF 600:


----------



## northlarch (Feb 23, 2022)

A little disappointed with the recycling and stopgaps from Canon, to be honest. Nikon seems to have the better technology with their PF lenses and a more practical approach at the moment for wildlife shooters. More versatility with their built-in TCs and those PFs are fantastic glass for the size. Hardly different from their super tele primes.


----------



## dolina (Feb 23, 2022)

northlarch said:


> A little disappointed with the recycling and stopgaps from Canon, to be honest. Nikon seems to have the better technology with their PF lenses and a more practical approach at the moment for wildlife shooters. More versatility with their built-in TCs and those PFs are fantastic glass for the size. Hardly different from their super tele primes.


I am not updated with Nikkor lenses which led me to this NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S that uses PF (Phase Fresnel) lens tech.

What I could not find is the physical dimensions & weight of it. Front element would be 2mm larger than the 500/4.0's 125mm.

If I were to hazard a guess this Nikkor would be nearly 2kg or 4.4lbs in weight and nearly as tall as 400mm or 500mm lens.

Would the price point be north of $13,000? Odds are, yes.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 23, 2022)

arbitrage said:


> Looking at the RF 600 diagram it has the same two fluorite and single Super UD as this 1200 spec list says. I believe the single UD is the very front element. I'd assume that the 1200 will look identical from the two vertical hash lines forward and then the rear smaller elements will be different. (Purple is Fluorite, Green is Super UD.
> 
> I still don't think this is just a RF 600 with 2xTC elements tacked on but it is certainly along those lines...but won't be a complete clone. Considering the MFD is still 4.5m means this isn't a typical 1200mm design like the 1200L was and this won't be nearly as long...that thing had a 14m MFD
> 
> ...



I'm coming around to the idea that you might be right, and that, while technically a different design, it could well be that everything to the left is really the 600mm f/4, with some clever bits on the right added in with the effect of a teleconverter. It's certainly a possibility at least. I've made this all appropriately more uncertain in the OP.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 23, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> The 500 PF is near perfect. The 800 PF is a further generation ahead. Canon's 400 DO f/4.0 L was crap and the mark 2 is considered fantastic.


Canon's first DO lens was a first, a poineering move, and it wasn't crap, that's too hard. It just did not yet meet the performance of a conventional lens (see Brian Carnathan's review of the first one back then). After Canon came up with the much better MK II version, Nikon could analyze a copy and learn


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 23, 2022)

dolina said:


> I am not updated with Nikkor lenses which led me to this NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S that uses PF (Phase Fresnel) lens tech.
> 
> What I could not find is the physical dimensions & weight of it. Front element would be 2mm larger than the 500/4.0's 125mm.
> 
> ...


I sometimes met a guy in Germany who carried that one and a 600mm lens with him and mounted both with two cameras on a huge tripod. But that was a place which one can reach with a trolley, one doesn't need a backpack. For my personal taste it was a bit too much gear to handle when it gets to action but he was happy. The 800 looked surprisingly compact, compared with Nikon's 600mm f/4 he had.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 23, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> Canon's first DO lens was a first, a poineering move, and it wasn't crap, that's too hard. It just did not yet meet the performance of a conventional lens (see Brian Carnathan's review of the first one back then). After Canon came up with the much better MK II version, Nikon could analyze a copy and learn


mark 2 is considered fantastic. No one is questioning it.


----------



## dolina (Feb 23, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> I sometimes met a guy in Germany who carried that one and a 600mm lens with him and mounted both with two cameras on a huge tripod. But that was a place which one can reach with a trolley, one doesn't need a backpack. For my personal taste it was a bit too much gear to handle when it gets to action but he was happy. The 800 looked surprisingly compact, compared with Nikon's 600mm f/4 he had.


You must have been with a fella with a 800/5.6 VR and 600/4.0 VR then. 

I know of a handful who completed their sets of fast long primes that would bring half their fleet with them to maximize their photo keeper rate.


----------



## John Wilde (Feb 23, 2022)

Quackator said:


> Nokishita is dead? How that?


They deleted their Twitter account.


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 23, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> I sometimes met a guy in Germany who carried that one and a 600mm lens with him and mounted both with two cameras on a huge tripod. But that was a place which one can reach with a trolley, one doesn't need a backpack. For my personal taste it was a bit too much gear to handle when it gets to action but he was happy. The 800 looked surprisingly compact, compared with Nikon's 600mm f/4 he had.


Those two lenses are very similar in size. The 600 has slightly more girth but not much. The Nikon 800 is longer than the Nikon 600. The only thing that makes the older Nikon 600VR look massive is if he had on the dual lens hoods. The 800 and the newer Nikon 600 have a lens hood like Canon.


----------



## tron (Feb 23, 2022)

Jack Douglas said:


> OK, but I'm a Canonite and presently do most of my shots at 800, although F8, as is. I'd be more interested in the 800 if it's light but can't afford it anyway. That's why I dream.
> 
> Jack


Jack are you satisfied with your combo IQ fully open? Have you tested it at f/11 too and if so are the improvements obvious?
I made some comparisons at TDP and at f/11 it seems better (but then it is a very version of RF800 f/11 !!!)

I feel a little silly asking you because I have the combo and some shots seemed nice and some not. But I have not tested it at f/11 and I do not know when I will.

Again I feel silly asking you. Maybe I will take some shots from my balcony and compare them. The only combo (with TCs) which I like a lot (and use when I only shoot through a car) is 500mm f/4L IS II/EF2XIII EOS-R adaptor and R5. But I was sure it was a decent combo because I used to use it with 5DsR (OK without the adaptor obviously  )


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> Canon's first DO lens was a first, a poineering move, and it wasn't crap, that's too hard. It just did not yet meet the performance of a conventional lens (see Brian Carnathan's review of the first one back then). After Canon came up with the much better MK II version, Nikon could analyze a copy and learn


Canon's DO II technology differed from the first by having a double-gapless Fresnel zone plate instead of a single. I have searched for whether Nikon used the newer Canon technology in their PF lenses and have found no evidence for it. So, if anyone could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2022)

tron said:


> Jack are you satisfied with your combo IQ fully open? Have you tested it at f/11 too and if so are the improvements obvious?
> I made some comparisons at TDP and at f/11 it seems better (but then it is a very version of RF800 f/11 !!!)
> 
> I feel a little silly asking you because I have the combo and some shots seemed nice and some not. But I have not tested it at f/11 and I do not know when I will.
> ...


I found in the final testing of my second copy of the 400mm DO II that at f/8 with the 2xTC III it was very similar to the RF 800mm f/11 and did improve slightly on stopping down to f/11. My first copy of the lens with the 2xTCIII was also similar, but I don't recall it improving when stopping down. Anyway, my copy of the RF 100-500mm + RF 2x beats both.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 23, 2022)

tron said:


> Jack are you satisfied with your combo IQ fully open? Have you tested it at f/11 too and if so are the improvements obvious?
> I made some comparisons at TDP and at f/11 it seems better (but then it is a very version of RF800 f/11 !!!)
> 
> I feel a little silly asking you because I have the combo and some shots seemed nice and some not. But I have not tested it at f/11 and I do not know when I will.
> ...


Tron, I'm sorry but it seems I always need to be wide open trying to get my shutter speed up since movement tends to happen with critters. Ignorance is bliss so I just motor along with 400 X2 and I still get my share of compliments. 

I know it's hard to accept exaggerative praise when we know better. 

Jack


----------



## mbike999 (Feb 24, 2022)

dolina said:


> I am not updated with Nikkor lenses which led me to this NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S that uses PF (Phase Fresnel) lens tech.
> 
> What I could not find is the physical dimensions & weight of it. Front element would be 2mm larger than the 500/4.0's 125mm.
> 
> ...



Nikon roadmap shows their 800 being slightly longer than their 400/2.8 TC, but thinner around the lens barrel. Canon 400 RF, which the new 800/5.6 appears to be based on, is about 14.45 inches, so this new lens is probably in the 17-18 inch ballpark. 

The Nikon will probably be about 16 inches or so gauging from diagrams. Weight unknown of course. Price also a huge unknown but all signs point to the Canon being $13K+


----------



## Sdentrem (Feb 24, 2022)

I currently shoot the EF 500 f4 II adapted on my R5, mostly for birds, and use the 1.4x teleconverter 90 pct of the time on it, so 700mm f5.6. I was waiting for a new 500mm f4 in RF guise, but this 800 might be worth considering if it’s sharp and light. It’s likely not much bigger than my 500, and lighter as it’s based on the new 400mm f2.8 which was version III, where the 500 is still at version II and heavier. Hmmmm…. I’ll have to await field testing and reports before deciding, but I could be interested.


----------



## dolina (Feb 24, 2022)

Canon announces $17K 800mm F5.6, $20K 1200mm F8 lenses for RF mount​
3140 g (6.92 lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm







3340g (7.36lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm






My guess was right! It's $17,000 or more! lol


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 24, 2022)

dolina said:


> Canon announces $17K 800mm F5.6, $20K 1200mm F8 lenses for RF mount​
> 3140 g (6.92 lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm
> 
> 
> ...


Correct me if I'm wrong. In the write-up on DP Review, there is this sentence about the 1200 f/8 lens: "It too supports Canon’s RF 1.4x and RF 2x extenders, which turn it into a 1680mm F16 and 2400mm F32 lens, respectively." Shouldn't that be 1680 f/11 and 2400 f/16??


----------



## tron (Feb 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I found in the final testing of my second copy of the 400mm DO II that at f/8 with the 2xTC III it was very similar to the RF 800mm f/11 and did improve slightly on stopping down to f/11. My first copy of the lens with the 2xTCIII was also similar, but I don't recall it improving when stopping down. Anyway, my copy of the RF 100-500mm + RF 2x beats both.


Many thanks Alan. I had forgotten your extensive tests on almost every combination.

But at 1000mm at f/14 even with DLA at around f/7 is better than a combo at f/8. I guess 1000mm vs 800mm have something to do with it.
By the way I have two or three photos that show extreme sharpness and verify your findings (They just frustrate me because I was looking for a different grebe that day and it took me 2 or 3 minutes to focus and that is the reason for firmware downgrade.

I will make more tests with my DO lens. I do not want to let go of it. It can be 400 f/4 560 f/5.6 and 800 f/8 with reasonable size (although a little on the heavy side).


----------



## tron (Feb 24, 2022)

By the way that EF500mm f/4L IS II with TCs and EOS-R adapter seems to me "poor man's" RF600, RF 800, whatever. Of course I am joking but I mean that by having it I don't have to get a double expensive RF telephoto big white. Not the same but close enough. Unless they make an RF500 f/4L IS at 2.1 Kg 
EDIT: And shorter than the current one


----------



## dolina (Feb 24, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong. In the write-up on DP Review, there is this sentence about the 1200 f/8 lens: "It too supports Canon’s RF 1.4x and RF 2x extenders, which turn it into a 1680mm F16 and 2400mm F32 lens, respectively." Shouldn't that be 1680 f/11 and 2400 f/16??


Its been nearly a decade since I thought about it but I think 1.4x should means 1-stop of light loss and 2.0x would be 2-stop of light lost.

For a full proper setup from scratch for the 1200mm one would need to set aside at least $35,000


----------



## HeadKickedByHolly (Feb 24, 2022)

My main camera shop guy asked if I was interested in either of them since I had already brought the 400 2,8 Nikon and put down a deposit for the Nikon 800mm. I placed an order with him for both since they will moistly be used on my RED Raptor for surfing footage. Expensive year already but I swallow a lot of this through my accountant so no biggie really. Not expecting much change from 35k euro and that's with my generous discount... I should say thats 35 grand deposit for just the 1200mm so far.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 24, 2022)

HeadKickedByHolly said:


> My main camera shop guy asked if I was interested in either of them since I had already brought the 400 2,8 Nikon and put down a deposit for the Nikon 800mm. I placed an order with him for both since they will moistly be used on my RED Raptor for surfing footage. Expensive year already but I swallow a lot of this through my accountant so no biggie really. Not expecting much change from 35k euro and that's with my generous discount...


Surfing is one area I always forget where you want/need these huge lenses and I very much doubt it is in the extreme low light that wildlife shooters desire.


----------



## HeadKickedByHolly (Feb 24, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Surfing is one area I always forget where you want/need these huge lenses and I very much doubt it is in the extreme low light that wildlife shooters desire.


Yes, I love using super teles along with say a 100 - 400 and some wide angles. I have various bodies and a couple are used solely on super teles, 1 Nikon, 1 Canon and depending on where I am in the world I can set them up and everything else is done remotely. I do some low light/dusk shooting but normally thats always with a 400 2.8 or lower focal length.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Canon's DO II technology differed from the first by having a double-gapless Fresnel zone plate instead of a single. I have searched for whether Nikon used the newer Canon technology in their PF lenses and have found no evidence for it. So, if anyone could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.


I can only say, as a physicist, that the fundamental principles should be the same in such Canon and Nikon lenses. The design details surely differ, and one reason I guess is that Nikon had to work around earlier Canon patents.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 25, 2022)

dolina said:


> You must have been with a fella with a 800/5.6 VR and 600/4.0 VR then.
> 
> I know of a handful who completed their sets of fast long primes that would bring half their fleet with them to maximize their photo keeper rate.


The problem in my opinion is that your right and left eye won't be able to peer at the same time through two cameras to catch sudden action, if you don't have a very special physiognomy  - and shooting wildlife by looking on two displays only works well if you sit in a dark shelter during a bright day. To be serious, I personally prefer to work with only one gear and fully concentrate on that. I mostly shoot free-hand with my EF 500mm plus often a 1.4x TC III attached because I then can catch action like BIF better. For two long lenses with cameras attached I'd need four arms, two heads - and a much more stable spine. 

Picasso explained once his girlfriend and painter Francoise Gilot that he prefers to paint a picture with only one brush, to get not distracted by changing tools. I think that he was not only very gifted, but also a really wise artist. Simplicity is the best path to gain more freedom.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 25, 2022)

These two lenses make my ef 400mm f2.8 LIS look positively short and erm heavy!


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 25, 2022)

80 grams of savings (250g compared to a 334g 2x TC) compared to the virtually identical RF600x2 is pretty unimpressive for the $6400 price premium. $80 per gram saved is a little absurd.


----------



## InchMetric (Feb 25, 2022)

Prediction: These 800 and 1200 lenses are inexplicably and absurdly overpriced compared to the essentially identical 400 and 600 lenses for one reason:

Their prices are going up. I'll predict a $1000 increase within a year for each of those. (Which is about 7%, which is about the last year's inflation rate).

Coming:
400: $12k->$13k
600: $13k->$14k
800: $17k
1200: $20k

Doesn't that feel more proportional and logical?


----------

