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

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
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.
Thanks for mentioning why you were closer with the macro. That makes perfect sense, and a closer focus allows higher max. magnification and that is why I often look for a very high max. mag. value when deciding on which lens to get. With that said, the macro shot is way better.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
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.
What lens do you use for dragonflies in flight that is much stronger than the 100-400mm II? And what do you use for butterflies that get skittish when you get close?
 
Upvote 0
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.

Sadly I struggled to get decent shutter speeds that day so gave up on that pretty quickly. The only in-flight shot I haven't yet deleted
happens to have been taken with the 100mm, though it's not great - and as you can tell from the focus it also wasn't intentional! http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7869.jpg I'm not sure the 100-400 has much of an advantage over the macro for small flying subjects like these though because the same limitations still apply whether flying or stationary, and the damselflies are cooperative enough that they come within comfortable range of the macro.

Slightly bigger subjects like small birds are different story, there I'd say the 100-400 really starts to come into its own. Here's one from the back yard a month or so ago at 400mm that would have been impossible with the macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7137.jpg (taken from much further away than I'd have liked because the goldfinches are so skittish I can't get anywhere near them. The robins are much more cooperative! :LOL:)

I guess this has diverged a lot from the original topic, so by way of steering it back a little... I'm genuinely curious to see what the two f/11 lenses are capable of when combined with the likely stellar AF and decent high ISO of the R5. I suspect with good light, action shots might be more readily obtainable than the f/11 implies.
 
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
Sadly I struggled to get decent shutter speeds that day so gave up on that pretty quickly. The only in-flight shot I haven't yet deleted
happens to have been taken with the 100mm, though it's not great - and as you can tell from the focus it also wasn't intentional! http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7869.jpg I'm not sure the 100-400 has much of an advantage over the macro for small flying subjects like these though because the same limitations still apply whether flying or stationary, and the damselflies are cooperative enough that they come within range of the macro.

Slightly bigger subjects like small birds are different story, there I'd say the 100-400 really starts to come into its own. Here's one from the back yard a month or so ago at 400mm that would have been impossible with the macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7137.jpg (taken from much further away than I'd have liked because the goldfinches are so skittish I can't get anywhere near them. The robins are much more cooperative! :LOL:)

I guess this has diverged a lot from the original topic, so by way of steering it back a little... I'm genuinely curious to see what the two f/11 lenses are capable of when combined with the likely stellar AF and decent high ISO of the R5. I suspect with good light, action shots might be more readily obtainable than the f/11 implies.
If you're interested in the long lenses for little things like dragonflies taken from a distance, I suggest you look at getting the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS lens which has a 0.33 max magnification. It's the max. mag. that's crucial to get a close to full sensor shot of a dragonfly, and the zoom will help you have any chance of following it in flight. Have you looked at the smallest width image the 800mm f11 can take? I think it has 0.14x max mag, so it'd be 257mm wide (10") which means you'll be cropping out the wazoo, so what good is it for little things?
 
Upvote 0
If you're interested in the long lenses for little things like dragonflies, I suggest you look at getting the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS lens which has a 0.33 max magnification. It's the max. mag. that's crucial to get a close to full sensor shot of a dragonfly, and the zoom will help you have any chance of following it in flight. Have you looked at the smallest width image the 800mm f11 can take? I think it has 0.14x max mag, so it'd be 257mm wide (10") which means you'll be cropping out the wazoo, so what good is it for little things?

Yes I agree, the 800 will be hopeless for anything small - my comments on the f/11 lenses were regarding action in general, sorry I should have made that clear. I don't think I've ever even attempted taking a photo of an insect with my 800!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
I think those are all factors you DO have to face when making a real-world decision. A choice between lens A and B for a given subject or shot is never going to be a FAIR test. If the given subject is going to require massive cropping with one of the alternatives, then you have to base your decision on that in part. You can't just shrug and say, well, the MTF curve is comperable so it should be a toss-up if we were being fair.
I already responded accordingly to chris_overseas above. I guess you didn't see it. I'll paste a copy of it here so you can see it:

"Thanks for mentioning why you were closer with the macro. That makes perfect sense, and a closer focus allows higher max. magnification and that is why I often look for a very high max. mag. value when deciding on which lens to get. With that said, the macro shot is way better."

OK?
 
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the specs now show the f/11 aperture is fixed and no stopping down.

Does anyone know where Canon hides its MTF curves - I can't find them?

So everyone who didn't complain about it being only f/11, will now complain that they can't lower it further. :ROFLMAO: Not that I would blame them, in this case.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Oct 10, 2015
139
35
Why f11 what am I missing here.

Price and size: 800 mm f/5.6L is 4.5 kg and costs 14000 €. This is 1.3 kg and 1080 €. With DSLRs it was harder to make slower lenses because of the autofocus. These are not for serious nature photographers who shoot at dusk. These are for more casual use carried while hiking in good weather. The intention is to compete with lenses made for smaller sensors as well as super zooms. Canon G3 X for example has lens that longest is equivalent to 600 mm f/16. Sony RX 100 IV is 600 mm f/11.

I think Canon's long term strategy is to move everyone or almost everyone to full frame so the EOS RP is equivalent to the Nikon Z50. To make this affordable they need cheaper and slower lenses. I think they should do 24-70 mm f/5.6 (or 5.6-8) with IS. If this sounds slow the kit lens of M50 is equivalent to 24-72 mm f/5.6-10. In this way a user could get a cheap system and then supplement it with fast and affordable primes if needed.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 24, 2019
121
79
Price and size: 800 mm f/5.6L is 4.5 kg and costs 14000 €. This is 1.3 kg and 1080 €. With DSLRs it was harder to make slower lenses because of the autofocus. These are not for serious nature photographers who shoot at dusk. These are for more casual use carried while hiking in good weather. The intention is to compete with lenses made for smaller sensors as well as super zooms. Canon G3 X for example has lens that longest is equivalent to 600 mm f/16. Sony RX 100 IV is 600 mm f/11.

I think Canon's long term strategy is to move everyone or almost everyone to full frame so the EOS RP is equivalent to the Nikon Z50. To make this affordable they need cheaper and slower lenses. I think they should do 24-70 mm f/5.6 (or 5.6-8) with IS. If this sounds slow the kit lens of M50 is equivalent to 24-72 mm f/5.6-10. In this way a user could get a cheap system and then supplement it with fast and affordable primes if needed.
rx10 is f4 at 600 equivalent for exposure while its f11 for bokey it is a stunning lens for what it is it is an eye opener for whoever uses it
 
Upvote 0

Sharlin

CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,415
1,433
Turku, Finland
As a bird photographer, with a 400 F4 DO II , 500 F5.6 PF and 600mm F4 lenses. I have absolutely NO interest in F11 lenses because of two things

Thanks for telling us you're not part of the target audience. Now why should we care? I'm not in the market for many things but I don't run around Internet forums explaining how those things aren't for me personally.

These are consumer offerings, not for serious wildlife photographers

Gee, thank you Captain Obvious. I'm sure this fact was lost to many people who genuinely thought they could replace their €15,000 EF 600mm f/4L with one of these.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Andreasb

CR Pro
Mar 24, 2017
24
23
If you actually read and had understood what I wrote, you might have realized I was trying to do you and many others a favor, these lenses will on an average day most likely produce average image quality because of too low shutter speeds or very grainy images because you have to increase you ISO by up to 3 stops to get the image sharp and shake free. And then there is the beginning of diffraction as well to care about. I'm sure Canon will sell lots of these, but I fear the customers wont be that happy.

What I was trying to tell people that don't have the experience to shoot at these focal lengths is that it is hard to shoot long lenses, and it doesn't get better at F11

Thanks for telling us you're not part of the target audience. Now why should we care? I'm not in the market for many things but I don't run around Internet forums explaining how those things aren't for me personally.



Gee, thank you Captain Obvious. I'm sure this fact was lost to many people who genuinely thought they could replace their €15,000 EF 600mm f/4L with one of these.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
If you actually read and had understood what I wrote, you might have realized I was trying to do you and many others a favor, these lenses will on an average day most likely produce average image quality because of too low shutter speeds or very grainy images because you have to increase you ISO by up to 3 stops to get the image sharp and shake free. And then there is the beginning of diffraction as well to care about. I'm sure Canon will sell lots of these, but I fear the customers wont be that happy.

What I was trying to tell people that don't have the experience to shoot at these focal lengths is that it is hard to shoot long lenses, and it doesn't get better at F11

I think people buying these will be first time wildlife shooters and they'll find the images they produce to be way ahead of what comes out their phone. Certainly form the sample images I would not be disappointed posting a image out of this to the web. I don't think I would be printing these images, but not disappointed ether. The sample of the squirrel at ISO1600, f/11, 1/160 looked perfectly fine coming from a EOS R.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
If you actually read and had understood what I wrote, you might have realized I was trying to do you and many others a favor, these lenses will on an average day most likely produce average image quality because of too low shutter speeds or very grainy images because you have to increase you ISO by up to 3 stops to get the image sharp and shake free. And then there is the beginning of diffraction as well to care about. I'm sure Canon will sell lots of these, but I fear the customers wont be that happy.

What I was trying to tell people that don't have the experience to shoot at these focal lengths is that it is hard to shoot long lenses, and it doesn't get better at F11
I am sure I could shoot with these lenses and get images that would be very satisfying for me. And those who don’t have much experience would soon learn how to improve their technique and discover when and where they are suitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Pixel

CR Pro
Sep 6, 2011
297
187
"A pig"

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
Rf 600....I'm tempted to buy this lens as it is intriguing ...however I'm not into "birding" or "wildlife" photography ..what would be other uses for this lens recommended?

social distancing friendly portraiture with MFD being around 6m? :) seriously though: airshows, even sport outdoors (good lighting conditions). could be a bit too long at times but football, soccer should be just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0