Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again

[DocInfoSci]

Canon's breakthrough 300D was the first consumer level digital sensor camera was 23 years ago and 6.3

Geez I’m starting to feel some age

 

[David - Sydney]

I don't deny the effectiveness of the way Canon is doing this, though I'm not entirely sure it will lead to a lot of FF purchases in the future since the lenses generally don't transfer. People can pick their FF system when they move, if they wish.

Canon are profitable and have chosen their own strategy which is working for them and their shareholders and to the most part - buyers.
Choices are awesome and expand the options for buyers. I don't feel strongly about people making their choice for what they want in a camera ecosystem

Canon is the best at building these very underspec'd very low-tier (yes, IMO junk) cameras and shoveling them out the door in large quantities. We saw it in the EOS days, and the result today is a huge number of junk bottom end EOS bodies in thrift shops that no one will ever want to use again. Most of them are likely broken anyway. It was this way in the film era, then the DSLR era as that progressed, and now in the RF era.

So what is the problem? There are probably less (in volume) ending up on shelves gathering dust now but it is all normal business.
We can sneer at the quality and features of lower end models but they fit a market segment and could lead to higher end purchases in the future.
Canon used to have different mounts for EF-S and EF but now crop and full frame are on the same mount yet you want Canon to go back 20-30 years?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Personally, I prefer the smaller size of the non-Z 70-200/2.8. I'd probably be more tempted by the Z version if I used my current one more often, but I really use it only occasionally and instead mainly use the 100-300/2.8 in those use cases.

I agree, if i did more paid PJ/ events work I would use a 70-200/2.8 a lot more. For landscapes and travel I used to like the versatility of the EF 70-200/2.8 because a few TC's a I didn't need another longer lens. But these days i would easily take a EF 100-400 LIS II or a RF 100-500L any day. Canon's MICL cams have such good high iso noise response that it makes the f2.8 less of a need than it used to be.
The non Z version is so small and practical comparatively. It fits in a lens bag so easily. However, if someone is looking for a 100-300mm f4, the RF 70-200/ 2.8 Z with a 1.4x TC will out perform optically the older EF 300mm f4LIS by some margin. Which is impressive, but not a requirement for every photographer.
If I was in the market for a 100-300mm f2.8 I would not even consider a RF 70-200/2.8 Z with a 1.4TC, even though I'd only loose a stop. But conversely, if I was in the market for the RF 70-200mm f2.8 Z, I would get the teteconverters and I wouldn't bother with the RF 100-300mm f2.8.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Canon sees you as a paypig that they will bleed and bleed.

You don't HAVE to buy anything...you just WANT to. I currently don't own a single RF lens, all mine are top choice EF lenses and they are superb.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I agree, if i did more paid PJ/ events work I would use a 70-200/2.8 a lot more. For landscapes and travel I used to like the versatility of the EF 70-200/2.8 because a few TC's a I didn't need another longer lens. But these days i would easily take a EF 100-400 LIS II or a RF 100-500L any day. Canon's MICL cams have such good high iso noise response that it makes the f2.8 less of a need than it used to be.

Indeed. My core travel kit comprises the R8 and three zooms – RF 10-20/4, RF 24-105/4, and either the RF 100-500L or the RF 100-400, depending on how much telephoto shooting I anticipate doing. I supplement those lenses with a few primes, typically one or both of the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses, a fast WA/UWA prime (24/1.8 or now one of the 14-20-24/1.4 trio), and I will often include the 28/2.8 just because it's great on the R8 for walking around unencumbered.

 

[john1970]

Thanks. Any sense of comparison of the RF 2x with the EF 2xIII? That’s what really stood out to me, that the RF was noticeably less sharp than the EF 2x.

I trade-in my EF 2x TC for the RF 2x TC so never did a side-by-side comparison.

 

[Dragon]

We are agreed all around then!

In this case I was curious as to whether the apparently really good ones, within the limits of a modern-ish Canon camera and its tricks only, gave a better foundation than what the cheap Samyang crowd was providing. If marginal, then I'd stay thrilled with my stupidly low prices and enjoy the toys for what they are. If substantially better then I might look at various markets.

I find in perfect conditions both the Opteka (Samyang) 500 and 900 can produce solid work with post-processing. The big trick was coming to terms with the ideal temperatures, and once I figured that part out the keepers became very consistent when situationally permitted. Regardless, the starting point is low contrast and softness. That bird photo, for example, should have a DoF of ~ .42 meters at 15 meters distant, and since the bird is less than 4 centimeters thick then unless my focus is crazy off (it wasn't, there was peaking) that's pretty much well what I get for the 500. Can I make that picture better? Yes! But that's my copy of the lens on a bright day in a slight breeze and hand-held by me. A person can look at that photo and go, ah — with an R6 and a 500mm Samyang that's a realistic expectation regardless of post skills.

But the act is inconvenient and the ideal situations are rare enough that I have far more useful lenses from Canon and other brands to cover the same range for "real" work. Still, I'm an engineering nerd and enjoy the side exercise all the same.

So yeah, enhanced or not I do enjoy seeing photos such as yours. But I find the in-camera edit restrictions more informative.

(Also, the 500 is a good astro lens for tracking stuff like the Andromeda galaxy when picture stacking is used.)

As I said before, I don't shoot JPEG (because I don't believe in digging ditches with a shovel when I own an excavator ). I can offer some samples with default LR processing, which is typically pretty close to OOC with the exception that Canon typically uses a bit steeper gamma curve than Adobe color, so the OOC pics will have a little more contrast. To the lenses, I have a copy of the Rokinon/Samyang 300mm f/5.6 mirror in EOS M mount and I would say it is reasonably consistent with the sample you posted when used on the M6 II, which has a very high-res sensor. It does have poor contrast. By comparison, here are some samples from some of the better mirrors I have. These are all full frame images to give you a sense of the contrast, but the pixel level detail is very decent on all three. Certainly not L-glass detail, but decent. Bottom line, I think you will find that vendors other than Samyang (aka Rokinon/Opteka/ya de ya) have made much better lenses. I was quite impressed with the TTartisans as it is very small and fast enough to easily use handheld in more situations than the longer slower lenses. BTW, your DOF expectations are likely optimistic because the central obstruction in the mirror lenses flattens the airy disc and thus causes perceivable focus to degrade considerably faster than with a refractor. Also, I have found that using the focus peaker is optimistic at best. If your want accurate focus with a mirror, use the magnifier. I programmed the magnifier to the DOF button to make that easy.


Canon NewFD 500mm f/8 on R5



Minolta 500mm f/8 on R5



TTArtisans 250mm f/5.6 on R8.

 

[DocInfoSci]

As I said before, I don't shoot JPEG (because I don't believe in digging ditches with a shovel when I own an excavator ).

Makes sense — I always have a raw copy, but a lot of my week day stuff is more amusement and shared quickly with family. In the end, raw is where it’s at.

I can offer some samples with default LR processing, which is typically pretty close to OOC with the exception that Canon typically uses a bit steeper gamma curve than Adobe color, so the OOC pics will have a little more contrast.

On my iPhone these are all lovely! Thank you for sharing. I’ll look in more detail when I get back to my computer.

By comparison […] I think you will find that vendors other than Samyang (aka Rokinon/Opteka/ya de ya) have made much better lenses. I was quite impressed with the TTartisans as it is very small and fast enough to easily use handheld in more situations than the longer slower lenses.

Very. I’ll definitely be looking into the used market for some copies. I assume they’d be very good for mid-field Astro as well. (I mainly use my mirrors for such on a tracker and stack the frames because they’re so lightweight.)

BTW, your DOF expectations are likely optimistic because the central obstruction in the mirror lenses flattens the airy disc and thus causes perceivable focus to degrade considerably faster than with a refractor.

That had not occurred to me. Thinking about this, I’m inclined to agree. Neither lens has ever felt like f/8 for light or depth. But at usual telescope distances the wedge is razor thin anyhow so hard to put a finger on it. Fwiw, I have 3D printed caps that attach to the central point to “increase” the f-stop for depth and that has seen some success, but I’ve been too lazy to do all the math yet.

Also, I have found that using the focus peaker is optimistic at best. If your want accurate focus with a mirror, use the magnifier.

Yes! And this is also true of my refractor lenses as well, just not as bad. But that bird was definitely not sitting around!

Thank you again! It’s my pleasure to make your digital acquaintance!

No no doubt everyone else here has totally forgotten by now about the 300-600 for $15k and will now go for mirrors here out. Right?! (j/k)

Sony is DOOMED.

 

[mimbu]

This is perhaps one bit I can empathize with. I'm not sure if harms is the right verb though. But IMO Canon does hold their users back.

Which brings me back to the 300-600. Sigma has a 300-600/4 that sells for 6600 USD and was released a year ago. I wonder if this release scuttled a Canon announcement, and why it has taken so long for Canon to release the 300-600 which they purportedly have been working on. Maybe they had a 300-600/5.6 ready for a similar price? Releasing a lens at a that's a full stop slower and shutting out Sigma by not licensing their mount to them would be bad optics (pun intended). Pure speculation on my behalf, of course.
(edit spelling)

Canon would sell a 300-600/5.6 for the same price as the 100-300/2.8 which it shares the same size front element with. Or even more. So...Canon 300-600/5.6 for $12k or a Sigma 300-600/4 for $6600. The Canon will undoubtedly be lighter but that Sigma is an incredible lens at a bargain price.

 

[mimbu]

It's an entry-level camera. Characterizing it as garbage is just you being arrogant. Grow up.

Denying the obvious just makes you look like a bootlicker. If Sony made a camera like the R100 I would have zero problems calling it garbage. Garbage is garbage and denying it is dumb.

 

[mimbu]

There is no 'harm' involved - only choices.
There are telephone numbers you can call for support if you feel that you are harmed.
But hey, you are generating clicks so good for you!

I sure seem to have upset a whole lot of Canon fanatics / corporate bootlickers. You guys really need to be a bit more objective. Actually, a LOT more objective.

 

[mimbu]

I can't think of a single lens that Canon hasn't offered a better version, superior specs or similar offerings than 3rd party. When i look at 3rd party lenses, there's always a downside fro the cheaper price. Poor AF or a lack of critical sharpness at the long end of a zoom range. For me, even Canon's older EF mkII and mkIII glass is far superior to most of the current 3rd party offerings. For me, my upgrade path is with Canon, not 3rd party.

All you're saying is that you haven't used any 3rd party glass in the last several years. There is a ton of stunning 3rd party glass around. You can get lenses for the same or less than Canon's budget glass that performs 90% as well as Canon's very best L glass. In some cases, it matches L glass.

If you have infinite money then sure, buy all Canon/Sony/Nikon glass. Or buy all Leica glass. Whatever floats your boat. But the reality is that when viewing a processed & printed photograph from a normal viewing distance, 99.999% of the population (if not 100%) won't be able to tell if you spent $2.5k on Canon glass or $250 on Viltrox glass. If you pixel peep, you can tell. So what's more important, the print or the pixel peeping?

 

[AlanF]

All you're saying is that you haven't used any 3rd party glass in the last several years. There is a ton of stunning 3rd party glass around. You can get lenses for the same or less than Canon's budget glass that performs 90% as well as Canon's very best L glass. In some cases, it matches L glass.

If you have infinite money then sure, buy all Canon/Sony/Nikon glass. Or buy all Leica glass. Whatever floats your boat. But the reality is that when viewing a processed & printed photograph from a normal viewing distance, 99.999% of the population (if not 100%) won't be able to tell if you spent $2.5k on Canon glass or $250 on Viltrox glass. If you pixel peep, you can tell. So what's more important, the print or the pixel peeping?

Sure, if all you do is take simple shots and view the whole image without cropping at a moderate size then most gear, including a smart phone, will be adequate in many cases. But, if you are working at the limit of needing very rapid, reliable AF and cropping greatly and then viewing, then you really see the difference between cheap optics and inferior AF compared with the top grade, and the inferior unacceptable. And what counts is not what appeals to 99.999% of the population but your own standards, which might overlap with the 99.999%.

By the way, your numbers are suspect. The remaining 0.001% of the population adds up to 82,000 people, and the estimates of the number of professional photographers ranges from 1 to 2.5 million, with 20-30 million serious prosumers. So, a figure of 97.5% of the population is a more realistic estimate of the population not being serious about quality.

 

[EricN]

You’re confusing the guy running this site with one of the writers for the site.

Regardless, the R100 is a far more capable camera than the entry-level DSLR that was my first. For many people, it will be the best camera they can afford. It’s a capable camera that can deliver great results in the right hands, if not in yours.

Your opinion of it is irrelevant.

I got an excellent deal on a refurbished r100 after seeing it on CPW at approximately the buying price on KEH. Autofocus isn't great but it can successfully get a bird. I'm used it for close to water level photos that I would be afraid to do with something more expensive. The blur on the left is 100% my fault and low contrast is intended. I'll post a more normal photo later

 

[neuroanatomist]

Denying the obvious just makes you look like a bootlicker. If Sony made a camera like the R100 I would have zero problems calling it garbage. Garbage is garbage and denying it is dumb.

No, I just understand the market and the position of the R100 in it. You just want to prove that you’re an arrogant ass, and at least that’s one thing for which you’ve provided convincing evidence. So, well done?

You guys really need to be a bit more objective.

This, from a slavering Sony fanboi. Oh, the irony.

 

[Bob Howland]

Indeed. My core travel kit comprises the R8 and three zooms – RF 10-20/4, RF 24-105/4, and either the RF 100-500L or the RF 100-400L, depending on how much telephoto shooting I anticipate doing. I supplement those lenses with a few primes, typically one or both of the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses, a fast WA/UWA prime (24/1.8 or now one of the 14-20-24/1.4 trio), and I will often include the 28/2.8 just because it's great on the R8 for walking around unencumbered.

And that's your "core" kit. Do you also carry a lightweight tripod? Update: the RF 100-400 isn't L. It is small and light and remarkably sharp.

 

[EricN]

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you have infinite money then sure, buy all Canon/Sony/Nikon glass. Or buy all Leica glass. Whatever floats your boat. But the reality is that when viewing a processed & printed photograph from a normal viewing distance, 99.999% of the population (if not 100%) won't be able to tell if you spent $2.5k on Canon glass or $250 on Viltrox glass.

But everyone will instantly know that you used that garbage Canon R100 and not the stupendously awesome Sony a6100, right? Yeah, we know that’s what you actually believe.

 

[EricN]

Sure, if all you do is take simple shots and view the whole image without cropping at a moderate size then most gear, including a smart phone, will be adequate in many cases. But, if you are working at the limit of needing very rapid, reliable AF and cropping greatly and then viewing, then you really see the difference between cheap optics and inferior AF compared with the top grade, and the inferior unacceptable. And what counts is not what appeals to 99.999% of the population but your own standards, which might overlap with the 99.999%.

By the way, your numbers are suspect. The remaining 0.001% of the population adds up to 82,000 people, and the estimates of the number of professional photographers ranges from 1 to 2.5 million, with 20-30 million serious prosumers. So, a figure of 97.5% of the population is a more realistic estimate of the population not being serious about quality.

The interesting thing for me was the person not worried about lower quality lenses is worried image quality loss with less expensive / advanced camera bodies.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

All you're saying is that you haven't used any 3rd party glass in the last several years. There is a ton of stunning 3rd party glass around. You can get lenses for the same or less than Canon's budget glass that performs 90% as well as Canon's very best L glass. In some cases, it matches L glass.

If you have infinite money then sure, buy all Canon/Sony/Nikon glass. Or buy all Leica glass. Whatever floats your boat. But the reality is that when viewing a processed & printed photograph from a normal viewing distance, 99.999% of the population (if not 100%) won't be able to tell if you spent $2.5k on Canon glass or $250 on Viltrox glass. If you pixel peep, you can tell. So what's more important, the print or the pixel peeping?

Hmm 90%....exactly my point. When friends and family look over my website, I never hear those words "gee I could take that with my mobile". I also never hear...I bet that was taken with a tamron or a sigma lens. I would suggest to you that my older EF glass is superior to most current 3rd party lenses in terms of sharpness, colour balance, weather sealing, robustness / build quality, AF accuracy and speed. Sure a 3rd party lens might match a few of these high bar quality specifications but not all. With Canon you get a "full" package and with it comes reliabilty and re-sale value. Some of my lenses I've owned and used professionally for well over 15 years.
Here's a list of my current lenses and you decide:
EF 8-15mm fisheye, EF 11-24L, EF 24-70 f2.8 II L, EF 70-200 f2.8 LIS II, EF 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II. That's the zooms.
EF 35mm f1.4 II L, EF 85mm f1.2 II L, EF 100mm f2.8 Macro LIS, EF 135mm f2.0 L, EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II. These are my primes and there's also the two mk III teleconverters.
With this portfolio, when mated to my R5 and R6ii, I literally want for nothing. I have bought into the Canon eco-system over a long time and I have slowly investing in my glass. However, if I wanted to upgade a specific lens (the RF10-20 is very tempting) all my upgrade or side grade options are found in Canon, not 3rd party. In fact with my current lens choice, they even give Canon's RF offering a hard time. Yes, some of these lenses are quite old and that shows the reliability and engineering of Canon.