Close Menu

    Diving into the Canon RF 1200mm F8L and the Canon RF 800mm F5.6L

    By Updated:19 Comments2 Mins Read Canon Lens News
    Canon RF 1200 f8 728x476 - Diving into the Canon RF 1200mm F8L and the Canon RF 800mm F5.6L

    CanonNews created an article going through the RF 800mm and the RF 1200mm lenses. Like many of you, the sticker shock of 17K and 20K was a surprise to me as well.

    This article looks into the MTFs and tries to find a good reason to actually spend the extra money.  It really comes down to whether or not you have the desire with 400 or 600mm lenses to stack Canon extenders.  With the “inherent” 2x extender built into the 800mm and 1200mm lenses, you have the ability to take that to 1600 and 2400mm – focal lengths you cannot achieve using Canon extenders and the 400mm and 600mm lens, unless you use the soon to be discontinued Canon EF super telephotos (conspiracy there?).  From the article;

     If you have an R3, then these lenses are for you if you are needing to stack extenders using the more conventional RF 400 or RF 600mm lenses. If you have the EF versions of these lenses, then no, avoid purchasing these lenses. The new lenses are really the only option if you need to have an extreme focal length and wish everything to be native RF mount, as both the 800 and 1200mm can go to 1600 and 2400mm respectively, which the 400mm and 600mm lenses cannot. This may change dramatically if Kenko comes out with RF extenders.

    You can read the article here.

    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    19 comments

    1. This may change dramatically if Kenko comes out with RF extenders.
      3rd party support for extenders and lenses for RF mount is seeming like a mirage at this point. When it's easier to license L and E mount protocols why would any of the 3rd party manufacturers will spend resources on RF(& Z) mount.

      Edit: Just looked up there are no 3rd party TCs for either L or E mounts.
    2. The MTF plot for the EF800 in the Canonnews article is using the old style MTF, the other plots are the new style plots. @arbitrage posted the proper EF800L MTF in one of the threads yesterday. It shows that the EF800L is still better, but not as dramatically as the old plot implies.
    3. The MTF plot for the EF800 in the Canonnews article is using the old style MTF, the other plots are the new style plots. @arbitrage posted the proper EF800L MTF in one of the threads yesterday. It shows that the EF800L is still better, but not as dramatically as the old plot implies.
      But it should be Euro 9300 better, that's the price difference in France and Germany.
      RF: 23449, EF: 14149...
    4. But it should be Euro 9300 better, that's the price difference in France and Germany.
      RF: 23449, EF: 14149...
      Let's face it, an MTF30 of ~0.8 is disappointing for an f/5.6 supertelephoto - it's what you get after image degradation from a 2xTC. The old EF 800/5.6 had 18 elements in 14 groups, the new RF 26 in 18 groups - more means worse here. It looks like what we call here a bodge. Here are the diffraction corrected latest MTF charts for the new RF800, old EF800 , RF600, and EF600. For comparison, at the end is the RF 100-500mm at 100 and 500mm, a zoom at narrower aperture. Maybe it's very difficult to make an 800mm short enough physically.

      RF800MTF.pngEF800mtf.png
      MTFR600_2.pngmtfef600.png100-500mmRTF.png
    5. Let's face it, an MTF30 of ~0.8 is disappointing for an f/5.6 supertelephoto - it's what you get after image degradation from a 2xTC. The old EF 800/5.6 had 18 elements in 14 groups, the new RF 26 in 18 groups - more means worse here. It looks like what we call here a bodge. Here are the diffraction corrected latest MTF charts for the new RF800, old EF800 , RF600, and EF600. For comparison, at the end is the RF 100-500mm at 100 and 500mm, a zoom at narrower aperture. Maybe it's very difficult to make an 800mm short enough physically.

      View attachment 202614View attachment 202615
      View attachment 202618View attachment 202619View attachment 202620
      If I didn't have the EF 100-400, one of my two favourite lenses, and if I wasn't broke, I would certainly order the RF 100-500.
      A fully convincing lens, and even more thanks to your spending many hours testing it!
    7. If I didn't have the EF 100-400, one of my two favourite lenses, and if I wasn't broke, I would certainly order the RF 100-500.
      A fully convincing lens, and even more thanks to your spending many hours testing it!
      The EF 100-400mm II has very impressive MTF values. It's a classy lens. The values at 400mm f/5.6 are slightly than the 100-500mm at 500 f/7.1 because of the slightly less loss by diffraction. The 100-500mm at 100mm are pretty close to a prime lens, which was confirmed in the tests by opticallimits.com.

      EF100-400mtf.png
    8. An interesting observation in the article: the low res nature of the R3 may make the internally extended lenses less of an IQ liability.

      An implication of this is that it may corroborate the prediction that the R1 is going to be low-res.

      Frowny face here.
    9. An interesting observation in the article: the low res nature of the R3 may make the internally extended lenses less of an IQ liability.

      An implication of this is that it may corroborate the prediction that the R1 is going to be low-res.

      Frowny face here.
      What is your range for "low"?
    10. An interesting observation in the article: the low res nature of the R3 may make the internally extended lenses less of an IQ liability.

      An implication of this is that it may corroborate the prediction that the R1 is going to be low-res.

      Frowny face here.
      I find it very hard to believe that Canon deliberately designed incredibly expensive lenses of lower MTFs because the low resolution R3 and R6 would tolerate them.
    13. The market for RF 800mm & RF 1200mm is incredibly small among photographers. The longer lens will definitely have a surveillance use but the effort put into these compared to the returns on something like the L RF 24mm f1.4, RF 35mm f1.4, RF 50mm f1.4 etc. Is a strange way to build out the RF lens line up to match what they had in the EF line up.
    14. The market for RF 800mm & RF 1200mm is incredibly small among photographers. The longer lens will definitely have a surveillance use but the effort put into these compared to the returns on something like the L RF 24mm f1.4, RF 35mm f1.4, RF 50mm f1.4 etc. Is a strange way to build out the RF lens line up to match what they had in the EF line up.
      My uneducated guess is that the 800 and 1200 could reuse existing things in all parts of the process: less time needed during design, less time needed when changing the manufacturing line from 400/600 to 800/1200 and so on. It gets headlines for the focal lengths, Canon can say they released 2 new RF lenses, which buys them some more time to work on other, actually new lenses.
    15. I agree with your analyses. I would add that it also gives Canon marketing "bragging" rights as their mirror-less line-up of lenses now has the longest-reach available. I would be surprised if Nikon doesn't either come out with a 800mm or 1000mm of their own. I don't necessarily think they would do a 1200mm as it would be too much mimickry. I also guess, if they come out with an 800mm it will be a bit less than this new Canon. Time will tell.

      It might also be that Canon was wanting to beat Sony to market with a "super," super telephoto. Although I know we like to say that Canon follows it's own plans...
    16. The 100-500mm at 100mm are pretty close to a prime lens, which was confirmed in the tests by opticallimits.com.
      Thanks Alan. I know you took a look at my comparisons last month, but for those who didn't see them:

      It did fantastically at 135mm and 100mm on my SHOOTOUT threads on the lens forum on this site, links below. In a nutshell:

      • The 100-500 is so sharp at 100mm (at least in the center) that there's really no need to switch to the 100 Macro at all, even if you suspect you'll be using the full 45MP. You can easily hand-hold 1sec shots with this lens at 100mm.

      • At 1/30, even the worst of ten trials from the RF100-500/4.5-7.1L IS is sharper than the very best of 100+ images at any speed from the EF135/2.0L. And that 135/2 was the sharpest black EF lens, I think, maybe until the 180/3.5 came out.

      100mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF100/2.8 Macro, the RF100-500/4.5-7.1 and the RF24-105/4

      See my 135mm shootout thread for details on the methodology, but I'll summarize here: These are 55 lp/mm charts, which make the black lines about 2 pixels wide on an R5. This target has detail that is totally invisible unless your final image is reduced less than 4:1, and really only if...
      www.canonrumors.com www.canonrumors.com

      135mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF135/1.8, the RF100-500/4.5-7.1, and the EF135/2

      Background I want to understand how long I can hand-hold my lenses. Traditionally we used a rule of thumb: the "reciprocal rule," stating that you should use a shutter speed at least as high as one divided by the focal length. For instance, a 90mm lens would call for a 1/90th second exposure...
      www.canonrumors.com www.canonrumors.com
    17. Thanks Alan. I know you took a look at my comparisons last month, but for those who didn't see them:

      It did fantastically at 135mm and 100mm on my SHOOTOUT threads on the lens forum on this site, links below. In a nutshell:

      • The 100-500 is so sharp at 100mm (at least in the center) that there's really no need to switch to the 100 Macro at all, even if you suspect you'll be using the full 45MP. You can easily hand-hold 1sec shots with this lens at 100mm.

      • At 1/30, even the worst of ten trials from the RF100-500/4.5-7.1L IS is sharper than the very best of 100+ images at any speed from the EF135/2.0L. And that 135/2 was the sharpest black EF lens, I think, maybe until the 180/3.5 came out.

      100mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF100/2.8 Macro, the RF100-500/4.5-7.1 and the RF24-105/4

      See my 135mm shootout thread for details on the methodology, but I'll summarize here: These are 55 lp/mm charts, which make the black lines about 2 pixels wide on an R5. This target has detail that is totally invisible unless your final image is reduced less than 4:1, and really only if...
      www.canonrumors.com www.canonrumors.com

      135mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF135/1.8, the RF100-500/4.5-7.1, and the EF135/2

      Background I want to understand how long I can hand-hold my lenses. Traditionally we used a rule of thumb: the "reciprocal rule," stating that you should use a shutter speed at least as high as one divided by the focal length. For instance, a 90mm lens would call for a 1/90th second exposure...
      www.canonrumors.com www.canonrumors.com
      Right, Frank. The RF 100-500mm is simply one of the best zooms out there. I've been using it this afternoon for detailed close up work.
    18. My wife edits a wildlife magazine, and usually travels with the 100-500 along with the 100 L macro (ef). Over time, she's pretty much stopped taking out the macro, except when she needs actual 1:1 reproduction ratio. The big zoom really does it all. Coupled with the R5, she can crop most times to get effectively macro shots. She notices no image quality issues between the two, except for less control over subject movement for things like flowers in light wind, where she can hold the stem while using the 100.

      For my part, I just find it delicious that she's wandering around with multiple lenses. She used to make fun of me for that.

      I use the RF 100 macro, and the additional reproduction ratio can be useful on the smallest of subjects, but is difficult to achieve reliable focus and focus stack sets while running and gunning at those extreme magnifications. I have to use artificial light to freeze things, and that's a step too far for her. Like her, I usually just take the 100-500 and take advantage of the opportunities presented with later cropping.
    19. My wife edits a wildlife magazine, and usually travels with the 100-500 along with the 100 L macro (ef). Over time, she's pretty much stopped taking out the macro, except when she needs actual 1:1 reproduction ratio. The big zoom really does it all. Coupled with the R5, she can crop most times to get effectively macro shots. She notices no image quality issues between the two, except for less control over subject movement for things like flowers in light wind, where she can hold the stem while using the 100.

      For my part, I just find it delicious that she's wandering around with multiple lenses. She used to make fun of me for that.

      I use the RF 100 macro, and the additional reproduction ratio can be useful on the smallest of subjects, but is difficult to achieve reliable focus and focus stack sets while running and gunning at those extreme magnifications. I have to use artificial light to freeze things, and that's a step too far for her. Like her, I usually just take the 100-500 and take advantage of the opportunities presented with later cropping.
      I got the RF 100-500mm for use on the R5 as soon as it came out and for insects and birds. As far as I am concerned for my purposes, it does everything I want, and I grab that combo or the R7/RF 100-400, apart from BIF where the R5 is much better. The versatility of that that lens is such a plus combined with its sharpness and speedy AF, it made my 400mm DO II (and Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF) redundant.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment