Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM and Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM coming soon?

[becceric]

Genuine question: Would you still find it tempting, if it turned out to be a catadioptric lens, with accompanying donut bokeh?

I sure wouldn’t want the donut bokeh.
If I remember correctly, it would be only one aperture also. No way to change dof.

 

[Bob Howland]

I am also waiting on the 500 mm f4. I have little interest in a 800 mm or 1200 mm.

I own an EF 300 f/2.8 that is used with 1.4X and 2X TCs. The only other big white prime that interests me is a 400 f/2.8. But how about a 200-500 f/4 zoom instead or, better yet, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 that holds f/2.8 all the way to 350mm?

 

[snapshot]

I own an EF 300 f/2.8 that is used with 1.4X and 2X TCs. The only other big white prime that interests me is a 400 f/2.8. But how about a 200-500 f/4 zoom instead or, better yet, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 that holds f/2.8 all the way to 350mm?

all in on the 100-400 f/2.8 with built in 1.4x and 2x TC.

 

[InchMetric]

I suspect these are the state of the art 400 and 600 lenses with essentially 2x converters permanently attached. With som constraints removed to allow minor optical design improvements. Price: $1000 more then the lenses they are based on.

 

[PhilA]

Just for a bit of historic reference:

www.philaphoto.com/images/Canon-teles

 

[dolina]

What makes this rumored 800/5.6 & 1200/5.6 replacements not clickbait? Every year or so a rumored refresh is posted here just for fun.

With production delays caused by COVID there are dozens of other EF lenses that need an RF update and these two would be the last they'd prioritize.

Earliest I see either being shipped to retailers would be year 2025 or later

 

[kaihp]

I own an EF 300 f/2.8 that is used with 1.4X and 2X TCs. The only other big white prime that interests me is a 400 f/2.8. But how about a 200-500 f/4 zoom instead or, better yet, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 that holds f/2.8 all the way to 350mm?

I have an EF 300/2.8 II, but after picking up a slightly used 200-400/4 ext, the 300/2.8 isn't getting much use. The zooming is just so versatile.

 

[haripan]

I'm sorry, but English can't be written, so I think to depend on automatic translation, it's incomprehensible.
NOKISHITA seems to have written this source origin in Japanese bulletin board 5ch.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

Considering the size, weight and price of a "conventional" 1200mm F8 lens, it makes absolute sense to me if Canon made it as a mirror lens instead.

I have a copy of the $300 1200mm f10 russian cat lens. Weighs alot, has the diameter of a volley ball. f8 hmmm. It wasnt a total wast of $300 but close.

Makes a good soft portrait lens at 50 yards

 

[AlanF]

If I remember correctly, it would be only one aperture also. No way to change dof.

The RF 600 and 800 f/11s appear to be selling well despite being fixed aperture. The dof isn't usually a problem with the distances used for these long telephotos.

 

[entoman]

After Nikon's announcement of their 800 f6.3, a heavier and more expensive RF 800 f5.6 is going to be a hard sell for Canon.

Personally, what I'd like to see from Canon is some "compromise" lenses.

e.g. we have a choice between the low budget fixed aperture RF 600mm F11 optic for £859, or the RF 600mm F4L for £13,409. Nothing in between.

I think there would be a lot of demand among birders for a more affordable RF 600mm F5.6, now that sensors are good enough to cope with higher ISO settings.

 

[Tom Raymond]

If these monster lenses are in development, prototypes should be in use at the winter olympics right now.

 

[tron]

An RF 800mm f/8 DO could be tempting. These monsters cannot tempt me. But then they are made for professionals and I am not one.

Back to reality:

Canon's EF 800 f5.6L IS weighs 4.5Kg I think.

If they could make the RF version say 3.5Kg it would be a serious selling point.

This is not unreasonable. 600mm f/4L IS II weighs 3.9Kg and 600mm f/4L IS III 3.09Kg.

 

[AccipiterQ]

800 F5.6....I JUST told my wife that I was done with big spending on lenses for life, now that I purchased the last couple from my wish-list.

 

[Loswr]

800 F5.6....I JUST told my wife that I was done with big spending on lenses for life, now that I purchased the last couple from my wish-list.

Well, that was foolish.

 

[AlanF]

Personally, what I'd like to see from Canon is some "compromise" lenses.

e.g. we have a choice between the low budget fixed aperture RF 600mm F11 optic for £859, or the RF 600mm F4L for £13,409. Nothing in between.

I think there would be a lot of demand among birders for a more affordable RF 600mm F5.6, now that sensors are good enough to cope with higher ISO settings.

I used to have a 600 f/5.6 - an EF 300mm f/2.8 II with a 2xTC. I'd be surprised if they couldn't make a RF 600/5.6 weighing 2kg or less, and it should be lighter than an RF 500 f/4.

 

[jpavan]

Speculation on pricing? I'm guessing maybe 15k in USD for the 800, and more than that for the 1200. They'll have similar element sizes, and similar to the 600 f4 as well, but its not about the cost of the glass. Maybe Canon wants a $20k lens and one of these is it....

I'd guess that the cost of the 800 F/5.6 is the same price as the 400 f/2.8 (basically the same glass). The 1200mm F/8 is more of a wildcard. If it's basically a 600mm F/4 with a teleconverter strapped on it should cost about the same as the 600mm F/4. However, there have been persistent rumors that it will be catadioptric. In which case it should be a _lot_ cheaper, and not a direct competitor to the 600 F/4.

 

[Swurre]

Very interesting, will never be able to afford them but you can dream...

 

[tron]

I'd guess that the cost of the 800 F/5.6 is the same price as the 400 f/2.8 (basically the same glass). The 1200mm F/8 is more of a wildcard. If it's basically a 600mm F/4 with a teleconverter strapped on it should cost about the same as the 600mm F/4. However, there have been persistent rumors that it will be catadioptric. In which case it should be a _lot_ cheaper, and not a direct competitor to the 600 F/4.

I am pretty sure that the construction of a 800 5.6 is not the same with a 400 2.8 and TC etc....

Otherwise its length would be much much shorter.... One can also look at Canon drawings regarding the elements of the lenses...

 

[arbitrage]

There does appear from the last couple of posts that there is excitement about 800/6.3. However, 800mm is too specialised for me, in terms of both field of view and probably minimum focal distance. I'd prefer a 500/4, which has a similar size front element, with the versatility of 700mm and 1000mm with TCs. It will be interesting to see how well the 800/6.3 sells.

800 is also not something I'm that interested in. I prefer to shoot 600/4 or even 400/2.8 and reach to 800(840) with TCs if needed. I wouldn't spend 600/4+ money on one of these lenses.

I think these are very unlikely to be traditional optics as I really don't think there is a big market for them. They have to be DO or something else like the Cat being discussed.