Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm

Yes from what I've seen in reviews, Jan Wegener (who's highly regarded in the bird photography world and one of my favourite You Tubers) has tested it and said it's very good with 2x https://youtu.be/DYBNX16zIhw?si=yTqtOfKQ3DbILnkC
Jan Wegener is one of the few reviewers I can take seriously. :)
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Report: New Canon Super Telephoto Lenses Coming in May

Due to a lack of time, I asked Perplexity (what I prefer since several years now over ChatGPT) why Nikon's Z system still offers AFMA and Canon's not, and explained in my prompt our specific AF problems with our Z8 & Z 600mm f/6.3 PF combo (with and w/o 1.4x TC). Perplexity's answer might be interesting for some nerds (like me) here:

Nikon Z cameras still offer AF fine-tuning because mirrorless autofocus is not automatically immune to optical tolerances. The camera can focus on the sensor plane very accurately, but a given camera/lens/teleconverter combination can still show small mechanical or optical offsets, especially when a teleconverter is added and the effective aperture gets smaller.[1][2]

Why the adjustment exists

The main reason is that focus accuracy is not just a software problem; it is also affected by lens design, manufacturing tolerances, adapter/teleconverter alignment, and how the camera interprets phase-detect data. Even in mirrorless, the system can be “close but not perfect” for a specific lens combination, so Nikon keeps fine-tune as a correction layer for edge cases and for users who need maximum precision.[3][2][1]

With long lenses, wide apertures, and teleconverters, the depth of field becomes very thin, so even a tiny offset looks like obvious backfocus or frontfocus. That is why a birding setup can seem fine in general use but still miss consistently on small distant subjects.[4][3]

Nikon vs Canon approach

Canon’s RF mirrorless system is generally more self-correcting in practice because Canon has leaned heavily on on-sensor phase detection and lens communication designed as a tightly integrated mirrorless platform. Nikon’s Z system also uses on-sensor phase detection, but Nikon still exposes AF fine-tune because it allows compensating for residual per-lens/per-body/per-converter variation rather than assuming every combination is perfect out of the box.[5][1]

The key difference is not simply “Canon has dual pixel, Nikon does not.” It is more about how each manufacturer implements lens-body calibration, predictive AF behavior, and tolerance management across the whole optical chain. Canon’s system tends to hide more of that from the user; Nikon gives the user a manual correction tool when the combination is off.[2][1]

Your specific setup

A Z8 plus Z 600mm f/6.3 PF plus TC 1.4x should normally focus well, so a “massive backfocus” points to an out-of-spec combination, a teleconverter/lens alignment issue, a body/lens calibration mismatch, or a focus-shift behavior that becomes visible only at the longer effective focal length and smaller maximum aperture. The fact that the issue appears both with and without the TC suggests the base lens/body calibration is already off, and the TC may be exaggerating it rather than causing it alone.[6][7][4]

Practical interpretation

So the short answer is: Nikon keeps micro-adjustment because mirrorless AF is not mathematically perfect for every optical combination, and Nikon chooses to let users compensate for residual system error. Canon’s RF system often feels more automatic because Canon’s implementation relies more on integrated on-sensor focusing and hides calibration differences better, but it is not because mirrorless AF fundamentally cannot need calibration.[1][5][2]

A useful rule of thumb is that if one Nikon Z lens or lens-plus-TC combo needs a large correction, that is usually a sign to test the lens, TC, and body separately, because the camera is compensating for a real mismatch rather than a normal tuning quirk.[8][6]

My personal conclusion: looks like we'd have to send this combo to Nikon's service because of too big production tolerances - typical Nikon's lousy quality, I have to say after many years of using Canon and Nikon gear side by side :(
I used Reiken Focal for may years to AFMA DSLRs. They still produce their software for mirrorless, which is basically a waste of time for Canon as it just gives some limited information, but it does work with Nikon AFMA, and they explain why and the improvements. https://www.reikanfocal.com/why-nikon-mirrorless.html

It was very good indeed for DSLRs and I found it invaluable and the quickest and most accurate AFMA tool.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again

It is yet to arrive, however I do agree, I couldn’t say no at that price. That said you do see grey imports on eBay for less, so I suspect they’re still making money.

Wex are as pukka a company as B&H in New York. They’re likely the largest camera retailer in the uk. They always have the stall right next to Canon every year. This year they had two stalls at the show. One next to Canon and another next to Nikon and Sony.
Upvote 0

A History Lesson on Canon 20mm Lenses

I could almost swear we've discussed the EF 20mm here before @Canon Rumors

It's funny that you mention this lens now, as last week I was somewhat considering it - that was until I saw its vignetting, which is over 1 stop darker than the RF 16mm f/2.8😱

I'm considering the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM though, they're cheap these days, and they're about the same size as the RF 45mm, with the adapter.
Upvote 0

BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here

By coincidence I've been studying these for the past week. There's a new fenced off area with a flood close by, and 2 pairs of Little Ringed Plovers have been scurrying around, usually about 80-100m away. On Friday, a pair was on the near side, only some 80m away, and I got an adequate shot of one - in which the bird is only 330 px long with the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii. It does show clearly the eye ring.
and the beak. I posted it on one of the gear threads so here it is again. Yesterday, as they were far away again I had to use the 1.4x on the lens to get to 1120mm, and actually got one flying off from the other. They are ridiculously small but good enough for my records.


6L8A5891-DxO_Little_ringed_plover.jpg6L8A6401-DxO_2_Little_Ringed_Plover_1_flying-ls-ts_shaut.jpg
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0

Report: New Canon Super Telephoto Lenses Coming in May

Due to a lack of time, I asked Perplexity (what I prefer since several years now over ChatGPT) why Nikon's Z system still offers AFMA and Canon's not, and explained in my prompt our specific AF problems with our Z8 & Z 600mm f/6.3 PF combo (with and w/o 1.4x TC). Perplexity's answer might be interesting for some nerds (like me) here:

Nikon Z cameras still offer AF fine-tuning because mirrorless autofocus is not automatically immune to optical tolerances. The camera can focus on the sensor plane very accurately, but a given camera/lens/teleconverter combination can still show small mechanical or optical offsets, especially when a teleconverter is added and the effective aperture gets smaller.[1][2]

Why the adjustment exists

The main reason is that focus accuracy is not just a software problem; it is also affected by lens design, manufacturing tolerances, adapter/teleconverter alignment, and how the camera interprets phase-detect data. Even in mirrorless, the system can be “close but not perfect” for a specific lens combination, so Nikon keeps fine-tune as a correction layer for edge cases and for users who need maximum precision.[3][2][1]

With long lenses, wide apertures, and teleconverters, the depth of field becomes very thin, so even a tiny offset looks like obvious backfocus or frontfocus. That is why a birding setup can seem fine in general use but still miss consistently on small distant subjects.[4][3]

Nikon vs Canon approach

Canon’s RF mirrorless system is generally more self-correcting in practice because Canon has leaned heavily on on-sensor phase detection and lens communication designed as a tightly integrated mirrorless platform. Nikon’s Z system also uses on-sensor phase detection, but Nikon still exposes AF fine-tune because it allows compensating for residual per-lens/per-body/per-converter variation rather than assuming every combination is perfect out of the box.[5][1]

The key difference is not simply “Canon has dual pixel, Nikon does not.” It is more about how each manufacturer implements lens-body calibration, predictive AF behavior, and tolerance management across the whole optical chain. Canon’s system tends to hide more of that from the user; Nikon gives the user a manual correction tool when the combination is off.[2][1]

Your specific setup

A Z8 plus Z 600mm f/6.3 PF plus TC 1.4x should normally focus well, so a “massive backfocus” points to an out-of-spec combination, a teleconverter/lens alignment issue, a body/lens calibration mismatch, or a focus-shift behavior that becomes visible only at the longer effective focal length and smaller maximum aperture. The fact that the issue appears both with and without the TC suggests the base lens/body calibration is already off, and the TC may be exaggerating it rather than causing it alone.[6][7][4]

Practical interpretation

So the short answer is: Nikon keeps micro-adjustment because mirrorless AF is not mathematically perfect for every optical combination, and Nikon chooses to let users compensate for residual system error. Canon’s RF system often feels more automatic because Canon’s implementation relies more on integrated on-sensor focusing and hides calibration differences better, but it is not because mirrorless AF fundamentally cannot need calibration.[1][5][2]

A useful rule of thumb is that if one Nikon Z lens or lens-plus-TC combo needs a large correction, that is usually a sign to test the lens, TC, and body separately, because the camera is compensating for a real mismatch rather than a normal tuning quirk.[8][6]

My personal conclusion: looks like we'd have to send this combo to Nikon's service because of too big production tolerances - typical Nikon's lousy quality, I have to say after many years of using Canon and Nikon gear side by side :(
Upvote 0

Report: New Canon Super Telephoto Lenses Coming in May

Historically, Canon tends to announce professional grade big white telephoto lenses in the spring so a May announcement would be consistent with past behavior. For example, the Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 was announced on April 20, 2023.
I'd only be skeptical if the announcement would be April, 1st ;)
Upvote 0

Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm

Just as good? Also with the 2X extender? :p
Yes from what I've seen in reviews, Jan Wegener (who's highly regarded in the bird photography world and one of my favourite You Tubers) has tested it and said it's very good with 2x https://youtu.be/DYBNX16zIhw?si=yTqtOfKQ3DbILnkC
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here

Somewhere I read Ringed Plover. :unsure:

R5 + RF 200-800 + 1.4TC
@ 1/4000s, f/13, iso 2500
View attachment 228884View attachment 228885View attachment 228886View attachment 228887
In Germany you have two species of Ringed Plovers: the rare Common Ringed and the more often Little Ringed. The first one has yellow bill with black tip in the breeding plumage. The Little ringed has a mostly black bill in all seasons/plumage. That yellow ring around the eyes is prominent for the Little Ringed and present (but very thin!) in the Common Ringed only in the breeding plumage and only on the males. As Alan says these are difficult to catch in flight!
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

A History Lesson on Canon 20mm Lenses

I have the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM still. It's definitely a character lens. If you want a native sharp performance for most places you need to hit f/5.6 and for everywhere you need f/8. f/2.8 is great for isolating a point and letting the surroundings drift away — think of a focal point in a bar or old barn where the rest is merely a suggestion of place.

With DLO the situation improves by leaps and bounds! It was DLO that kept the lens in my bag, and it remains a good option for autumn landscapes, casual wide travel (it is small), etc. You'll never shoot it for critical sharpness, but... but... it has a pleasant character to the rendering. One of those I like this chocolate better than that chocolate feelings. In the hand it has a nice feel. That stated, it will never be an EF 24mm f/1.4 II.

The EF 28mm f/1.8 USM never thrilled me. It has a great form factor, but I never liked the rendering. Even with DLO. Good on a crop, however, and so my kiddo now owns my copy.

20mm is a very pleasant framing for the world. When it comes to people, the subject is the scene and the person is a prop.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

A History Lesson on Canon 20mm Lenses

I had an EF 20 mm f/2.8 USM back about 20 years ago.
The good: decent sharpness on a 6 mpix sensor when stopped down to f/11. Moderate red-green fringing was easily corrected. Fast and silent AF. Decent build.
The bad: useless wide-open. Really soft corners. Heavy vignetting across much of the frame even when stopped down (really noticeable on slides).
I got a good price for it when I sold it. I felt a bit sorry for the guy I sold it to.
Upvote 0

A History Lesson on Canon 20mm Lenses

I bought the sister lens of the FD 20, the FD-n 17mm f/4 maybe 40 years ago 2nd hand for 450 "Deutsche Mark" / 200$ of mid 1980s.
While it has the soft corners too it was good on film (ISO400 B/W) and rendering was o.k.
In terms of flares it is great because it has lots of them and it is good enough for 2k or just 4k video. If I will ever do some night scene of a car with strong headlights, this might be a good choice because of these flares!
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
37,420
Messages
972,806
Members
24,777
Latest member
EJFUDD

Gallery statistics

Categories
1
Albums
29
Uploaded media
372
Embedded media
1
Comments
25
Disk usage
1 GB