Here are the RF 600mm f/11 & RF 800mm f/11 super-telephoto lenses

Nov 2, 2016
849
648
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...
The main reason those lenses stopped being made was for the same reason the 1200 stopped being made. Cost.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
The main reason those lenses stopped being made was for the same reason the 1200 stopped being made. Cost.
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.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
true but its already paid for and any purchase nowadays is difficult to justify, the R was bought for peanuts
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
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.
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
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.)
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Mar 17, 2020
436
322
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.
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.

This is why I and others are willing to pay a huge premium to have a 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 in stead of a 300mm f/4 or 400mm f/5.6 lens.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
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.)
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.

Addition - there are approaches that do this, the Lucy-Richardson Algorithm is one that is frequently used - see https://www.mathworks.com/help/imag...the-lucy-richardson-algorithm.html#d120e36224
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
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/

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 :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
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.

I must admit I'm finding it more difficult to lug around than I did a few years ago! I can't hand hold it for more than maybe 30 seconds, and it's not usually worth trying because it's so hard to hold steady enough anyway. What I find works really well however is a Gitzo monopod plus a Mongoose 4th gen gimbal head. They help keep the weight down and are plenty sturdy enough for all but the most challenging conditions. The monopod works better for me than a tripod for tracking rapidly moving animals, and is also very effective in safari vehicles or Zodiacs, where tripods aren't practical.
 
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
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 :D
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.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
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 :D
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.

Thank you. Yes absolutely I was closer, that was partly my point. The MFD of the 100-400 combined with the small size of insects make it hard to avoid having to crop quite heavily, that's one reason I say it's not a great lens for insects. If you zoom both photos to 100% there's a visible difference in sharpness too which is independent of the cropping. Admittedly some of that is likely from camera shake and wind moving the subject, but the macro is a sharper lens without a doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 100-400 and find it incredibly versatile, I just don't think insects are its strong point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0