800mm and 100-500mm nearly same weighting ,that feels bit fail .
Same sized lenses and other got nearly double more lenses and metal construction?
Same sized lenses and other got nearly double more lenses and metal construction?
Upvote
0
The main reason those lenses stopped being made was for the same reason the 1200 stopped being made. Cost.No it actually is a big negative and the reason so many 800L owners sold them and bought 600II lenses when it came out. You had IQ that matched the 800L when you shot the 600 at 840. You had 1.4x better magnification and at a more reasonable 4.5m MFD. You had more supported AF points and you had a lighter lens. The 800L was special for its time but once the 600II (and now the III) came along the 800L is an inferior option IMO unless you can scoop one up for a super cheap used deal. I wonder why Canon never made a 2nd version of it....hhmmmmm...
Was it cost? The 800mm is an f/5.6 and has a slightly smaller diameter front element than the 600mm f/4. I'd be surprised if there is much difference in cost of manufacture. A 600mm f/4 is just so much more versatile giving 600mm f/4, 840mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8, compared with 800mm f/5.6 and 1120mm f/8.The main reason those lenses stopped being made was for the same reason the 1200 stopped being made. Cost.
I've posted elsewhere here that on a 50 Mpx sensor dropping the aperture from from f/5.6 to f/11 loses about 15% in resolution because of diffraction.Wot no green ring?
One thing concerns me is that the f/11 will be diffraction limited on many sensors. I'll have to wait for some of the reviews to see how good these really are.
Don't disagree. I own the Sigma Contemporary and while I'd like something lighter, it's not worth the trade off in f/stop. It's hard enough to get enough light for f6.3, much less for f11.true but its already paid for and any purchase nowadays is difficult to justify, the R was bought for peanuts
It might be rather a long extension to have a serious effect on the mfd of an 800mm lens. How much effect on mfd does the 12mm have on your 600mm?I imagine they'll come out with extension tubes soon enough. I could use a 12mm tube on my 600/4 and still infinity focus, due I assume to tolerances in the system.
I like butterflies, so if I got one of these I'd totally get an extension tube for it.
Come on, that's less than a stop different, and the new camera's sensor may well be enough improved that it's a wash.
Modern sensors are very efficient at harvesting light and there is very little room for improvement, unfortunately.Come on, that's less than a stop different, and the new camera's sensor may well be enough improved that it's a wash.
It is probably a Form of deconvolution they are using, similarly to the SmartSharpen Filter in Photoshop? I haven't used the Canon one myself, so that's just a guess.I'm interested that the Canon Software claims to be able to correct even this diffraction to some extent but I can't figure out how. (As an engineer many things I can figure out but not this.)
You have made this point a couple of times. But its wholly irrelevant. The subject distance used for a 600mm lens and 50mm lens are typically completely different and so is the focusing distance btw. So different F/-stops going from say 600mm f/5.6 to F/11 absolutely matters because it shows different degrees of blur - at a long distance.The 600/11 will have a 54mm aperture. Even the 50mm f/1.0L lens only had a 50mm aperture, so this will blur even more than the 50/1.0 wide open.
The 800/11 will have a 72mm aperture, which is the square root of two bigger than the 50mm's 50mm aperture. That means the blur would be 1.4x the width, or 2.0x the area, as you'd see by cropping a 50/1.0L image after shooting both lenses wide open.
Neither can I Frank. I think for simple systems you can do Fourier analysis of the point spread function but I don't know how they do this for the digital images that we generate.I'm interested that the Canon Software claims to be able to correct even this diffraction to some extent but I can't figure out how. (As an engineer many things I can figure out but not this.)
100-400mm II not much good for insects? Take a look here for a start https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/
I admire you hiking with an 800mm. I couldn’t even contemplate it. I have a 600mm F4 II and it’s a bit like an aircraft carrier. I need to bring a sturdy tripod and gimbal head. You end up going with so much weight. I have hand held it in safari but it takes its toll.
I don’t mind the 100-400 at all for insects. Of course not as good as a dedicated macro but not bad. It’s a fairly flexible lens. I would have liked Canon to do a good 150-600mm EF lens but the EF era is gone.
First, I would like to say that you took some beautiful pictures there!Perhaps "not much use" is too strong a phrasing, but I stand by my opinion that the 100-400 isn't a great lens for insects. There's some good shots in that link but I honestly think a lot of those aren't sharp, and perhaps have suffered from too much cropping or compression? I find the amount of cropping required is often a problem with the 100-400 with insects, that's just the nature of the lens vs subject size.
Nice coincidence on the damselflies though... I happened to see some a couple of weeks ago too - first time I'd really seen them, they're great! I had both the 100-400mm II and 100 macro with me and have to say I was much happier with the results I got from the macro. Unfortunately I don't have too many like-for-like comparison shots to illustrate my point, but here's one example:
100-400mm II: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7761.jpg
100mm macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7849.jpg
The first I had to crop quite heavily and in my view the sharpness and detail fall quite short compared to the second.
The reason for the green background in the second shot is I had someone hold up a big leaf for me for that one. Maybe that's the real reason why I prefer the macro shot
Now show us some dragonflies in flight taken with your 100mm macro. There are plenty taken with the 100-400mm II in the link for comparison.Perhaps "not much use" is too strong a phrasing, but I stand by my opinion that the 100-400 isn't a great lens for insects. There's some good shots in that link but I honestly think a lot of those aren't sharp, and perhaps have suffered from too much cropping or compression? I find the amount of cropping required is often a problem with the 100-400 with insects, that's just the nature of the lens vs subject size.
Nice coincidence on the damselflies though... I happened to see some a couple of weeks ago too - first time I'd really seen them, they're great! I had both the 100-400mm II and 100 macro with me and have to say I was much happier with the results I got from the macro. Unfortunately I don't have too many like-for-like comparison shots to illustrate my point, but here's one example:
100-400mm II: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7761.jpg
100mm macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7849.jpg
The first I had to crop quite heavily and in my view the sharpness and detail fall quite short compared to the second.
The reason for the green background in the second shot is I had someone hold up a big leaf for me for that one. Maybe that's the real reason why I prefer the macro shot
First, I would like to say that you took some beautiful pictures there!
But you must have been appreciably closer when you used your 100mm macro, compared to the 100-400, since 1) the dragonfly image is bigger in it, and 2) you had to "crop quite heavily" the image from the 100-400, and 3) the 100-400 can't go wider than 100 which would have explained why the image was so much smaller originally. With all that being said, it kind of calls into question the comparison.