A bit more information on the upcoming RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS

[Dragon]

This is very much true but I think people are looking for more in the middle.
The strange thing is that Canon had a bunch of FD lenses like this.
I do not think they sold very well which may have taught Canon a lesson.
On the other hand, Sigma's lineup sold exceptionally well even though they pretty much copied Tamron.
Nikon's lineup is interesting but it does not entirely make sense to me.
Both the Nikon 180-600 and Canon RF 200-800 make perfect sense to me.
I would also want to see some DO primes from Canon but I would not expect the apertures to match the Nikon PF lineup.

The 600 and 800 f/11 both use DO, but without any hype.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Sorry, this just isn't true. Only Olympus, or now OM System, or something like that, give an actual IP rating. So when a lens says it is weather sealed, you have no idea to what degree, as none are actually waterproofed, or gas purged, like a pair of binoculars. Weather sealing means many things. The most basic type is an O ring gasket around the lens mount, but no sealing rings elsewhere on the lens. This stops simple ingress of water through the lens mount. Then there are lenses, which have other sealing rings on the lens itself. This is not a matter of higher grade gear, as cheaper or independent lenses can have weatherproofing. But there is no accepted standard of what this is, unless it is IP rated, which gives an actual indication of what that level of proofing is.

Many internet commenters, spout about L lenses, as if they are special. True, they are Canon's top line lenses, but I know of no publicly released criteria for L lenses, even if internet commenters think there is some. Until the 100-500mm f7.1 L, many opined that L lenses had to be f5.6 or faster, and were instantly proven wrong, when Canon produced an L lens, which was f7.1. If you had read my comment, you would have seen that the Sony and Nikon 180/200-600mm zooms, are both fully weather sealed (this means O ring gaskets around the whole lens, not just on the mount - not that they are totally waterproof). In fact, if you read the manuals of most lenses with claimed weather sealing, it says never to expose them to water. This is to cover themselves, because all weather sealing is only partial, as it is not true water-proofing, to a certain pressure level. So at some point, all will leak. In other words, if you try to make a claim, because your weather sealed lens leaked, you won't get anywhere, as the manufacturer can say they warned you, not to expose it to water.

In your previous post, you said Sony and Nikon’s corresponding lenses were weather sealed. Now you’re saying that only lenses with a published IP rating (OM Systems) are weather sealed. So are Sony and Nikon weather sealed or not?

 

[P-visie]

In your previous post, you said Sony and Nikon’s corresponding lenses were weather sealed. Now you’re saying that only lenses with a published IP rating (OM Systems) are weather sealed. So are Sony and Nikon weather sealed or not?

Yes, Nikon and Sony both claim that the lenses you mentioned are weather sealed. Since their lenses and bodies have no IP rating, the ’level’ of sealing is not specified. The Sony definition of weather sealed may be completely different from the Nikon or Canon definitions.

My physics teacher taught me that a number without the unit is useless. Comparing the (unspecified) weather sealing of Nikon or the (unspecified) weather sealing of Sony lenses with a Canon lens (for which no official specifications are available) is like comparing apples with pears, i.e. meaningless.

Edit: I added (unspecified).

 

[roby17269]

Even without Denoise software post-process. R5 can go upto ISO8000, R6/R6ii/R3 can go upto 12800 easily. So yeah f9~f11 isn't a problem.

Easily yes, and even higher than that, in the sense that it is just a small rotation of the ISO dial, or a quick dive into the menus.
But I am just kidding I know what you mean.

I would say tho, that you cannot generalize. Everyone has a different tolerance for noise, and different use cases as well.
I used to try to keep my R5 below 3200 if possible as I did not really like the results above 6400. With AI NR things have changed and now 6400 is my new threshold. But AI NR is not without costs, and I do not mean processing times. It still kills a bit of detail and reduces the realism of skin. It will eventually get better... but there are also other issues with shooting at high ISOs, especially with colors.
Of course it all depends on how bright the scene is. But f/9-11 can be an issue when there is not a lot of light and the subject is not static etc.

So I disagree. Dark lenses are a compromise and f/9-11 can be a problem. You save money and size and weight, but your shooting envelope shrinks accordingly. There's no magic. If the new cameras are high-ISO monsters, they can still do better with big heavy expensive white exotics.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My physics teacher taught me that a number without the unit is useless. Comparing the weather sealing of Nikon or Sony lenses with a Canon lens (for which no official specifications are available) is like comparing apples with pears, i.e. meaningless.

While I am also a strong proponent of “no units, no answer“ in this case the issue is really about whether or not Canon claims the lens has moistur and dust resistance.

Personally, I suspect that if it lacks the L designation, it will not be advertised as featuring weather sealing (whatever degree of seals for tight joins are actually present in the lens).

I also think the rumored price is too high, and that this lens is intended to complement the RF 100-400 with similar features and build quality and coming in at perhaps less than US $1500.

I suppose we won’t have to wait long to find out.

 

[scyrene]

So I disagree. Dark lenses are a compromise and f/9-11 can be a problem. You save money and size and weight, but your shooting envelope shrinks accordingly. There's no magic. If the new cameras are high-ISO monsters, they can still do better with big heavy expensive white exotics.

Everything is a compromise. Winder aperture lenses are bigger, heavier, and more expensive. Lucky Canon produces both types!

 

[Dragon]

Easily yes, and even higher than that, in the sense that it is just a small rotation of the ISO dial, or a quick dive into the menus.
But I am just kidding I know what you mean.

I would say tho, that you cannot generalize. Everyone has a different tolerance for noise, and different use cases as well.
I used to try to keep my R5 below 3200 if possible as I did not really like the results above 6400. With AI NR things have changed and now 6400 is my new threshold. But AI NR is not without costs, and I do not mean processing times. It still kills a bit of detail and reduces the realism of skin. It will eventually get better... but there are also other issues with shooting at high ISOs, especially with colors.
Of course it all depends on how bright the scene is. But f/9-11 can be an issue when there is not a lot of light and the subject is not static etc.

So I disagree. Dark lenses are a compromise and f/9-11 can be a problem. You save money and size and weight, but your shooting envelope shrinks accordingly. There's no magic. If the new cameras are high-ISO monsters, they can still do better with big heavy expensive white exotics.

But the big, heavy, expensive, white exotic is far less likely to be at hand when the once-in-a-lifetime shot opportunity presents and that is the catch 22 that makes slower but much more portable lenses attractive to so many. If all your photography is planned in advance, then the big whites may well be your best choice, but if you carry a camera opportunistically, then the slower, lighter lenses are the better choice.

 

[roby17269]

But the big, heavy, expensive, white exotic is far less likely to be at hand when the once-in-a-lifetime shot opportunity presents and that is the catch 22 that makes slower but much more portable lenses attractive to so many. If all your photography is planned in advance, then the big whites may well be your best choice, but if you carry a camera opportunistically, then the slower, lighter lenses are the better choice.

Sure, agreed - my only contention was with the idea that f/9-11 is "always" fine. It is not, in the sense that it may be too compromised in terms of shooting envelope. There comes a point, for me at least, where having the lens at your disposal at the right time and place matters not if the aperture / shutter speed / ISO combo is so compromised that I'd rather not take the photo.

I rented a 400 2.8L IS mkI when I went for a safari in SA. That lens was a pain to carry around and I was spent after every day. But its quality and the way it let me handle low light net me images that would not have been possible with slower lenses - at the level of quality I (me, myself and again I, IMNSHO) was happy with.
Having said that, I have the 100-500 and I do appreciate how relatively light it is (I know because I have hiked on the Alps with it - that 400 2.8 would have remained home )

 

[Dragon]

Sure, agreed - my only contention was with the idea that f/9-11 is "always" fine. It is not, in the sense that it may be too compromised in terms of shooting envelope. There comes a point, for me at least, where having the lens at your disposal at the right time and place matters not if the aperture / shutter speed / ISO combo is so compromised that I'd rather not take the photo.

I rented a 400 2.8L IS mkI when I went for a safari in SA. That lens was a pain to carry around and I was spent after every day. But its quality and the way it let me handle low light net me images that would not have been possible with slower lenses - at the level of quality I (me, myself and again I, IMNSHO) was happy with.
Having said that, I have the 100-500 and I do appreciate how relatively light it is (I know because I have hiked on the Alps with it - that 400 2.8 would have remained home )

The big whites are there for those that need (and can afford) them, but the difference between "most of the time" and "always" is not a large space (but it is profitable). "Most of the time", OTOH is a large space that will absorb a lot of lenses and also inspire new camera buyers and that is most likely the reason you see Canon putting emphasis on lenses for that market segment. Big whites are introduced slowly and availability is limited since the fluorite crystals used for lenses in many of them take up to a year to grow. Clearly with the 600 and 800 f/11, DO is now a volume manufacturing process, so it will likely be used wherever possible in lieu of fluorite to minimize size, weight, and CA.

 

[EricN]

They haven't really kept the focus breathing down because because it has an mfd of 1800mm for a focal length of only 300mm, which is 6x its focal length whereas the 100-500mm focuses down to just over 2x its focal length. Its magnification is only 0.16x at its mfd whereas the 100-500mm is 0.33x. It does focus breathe as f at mfd of 1800mm is 214mm.

Edit: just calculated the focal length of the 100-500 at 6x its focal length to be 349mm, about the same breathing as the 100-300 at 6x.

This is really interesting to me. Is there a Physics law or theorem I can learn to understand it more?

 

[H. Jones]

I had a lot of thoughts to share, but while researching the Sony 200-600 f/6.3 for comparison, I noticed that a wildlife photog reviewer said the 200-600 "makes an excellent 280-840mm f/9" when paired with a 1.4x teleconverter.

So in all reality, Canon is offering these photographers a lens that doesn't need a teleconverter to cover 200-800mm F/9. So even if it's $2000, it's a discount over getting the Sony lens for $2000 and then getting a $500 teleconverter. Clearly, the huge amount of people who use the Sony 200-600 with a teleconverter haven't had a problem with 840mm F/9, so I think the aperture is a nonissue at this point.

I would also bet that this lens will have better image quality at those focal lengths without a teleconverter in the way, and will be more compact/lightweight than the competitor's combination with a teleconverter. The other positive is not needing to take a teleconverter off to get back to 200mm, which is a plus.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I had a lot of thoughts to share, but while researching the Sony 200-600 f/6.3 for comparison, I noticed that a wildlife photog reviewer said the 200-600 "makes an excellent 280-840mm f/9" when paired with a 1.4x teleconverter.

So in all reality, Canon is offering these photographers a lens that doesn't need a teleconverter to cover 200-800mm F/9. So even if it's $2000, it's a discount over getting the Sony lens for $2000 and then getting a $500 teleconverter. Clearly, the huge amount of people who use the Sony 200-600 with a teleconverter haven't had a problem with 840mm F/9, so I think the aperture is a nonissue at this point.

I would also bet that this lens will have better image quality at those focal lengths without a teleconverter in the way, and will be more compact/lightweight than the competitor's combination with a teleconverter. The other positive is not needing to take a teleconverter off to get back to 200mm, which is a plus.

That's a good way to look at it and probably Canon's strategy to "beat" Sony and Nikon: offer a similar sized and priced lens with 200mm more focal length.
But if the aperture at 600mm is F7.1 or F8 then it will be a disappointment to me.

 

[roby17269]

The big whites are there for those that need (and can afford) them, but the difference between "most of the time" and "always" is not a large space (but it is profitable). "Most of the time", OTOH is a large space that will absorb a lot of lenses and also inspire new camera buyers and that is most likely the reason you see Canon putting emphasis on lenses for that market segment. Big whites are introduced slowly and availability is limited since the fluorite crystals used for lenses in many of them take up to a year to grow. Clearly with the 600 and 800 f/11, DO is now a volume manufacturing process, so it will likely be used wherever possible in lieu of fluorite to minimize size, weight, and CA.

Sure, the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty early, that's true.
My main contention is with people making absolute statements (e.g. "f/9-11 is never a problem"), when in reality it is sometimes and, more importantly, whether it is a problem or not in certain circumstances depends on each photographer's tolerance to quality, noise, etc.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's a good way to look at it and probably Canon's strategy to "beat" Sony and Nikon: offer a similar sized and priced lens with 200mm more focal length.

Sorry, but it’s basically a nonsensical way to look at it. The reality is that very few people actually switch systems, and most of those are entry-level buyers who would not be in the market for a $2K lens. Those willing to spend that much on one lens are likely to already be significantly invested in a system.

This lens needs to appeal to people who already own Canon bodies and lenses (which is probably 70-80% of the installed base of. ILC users).

 

[swkitt]

It's funny to read ISO capabilities can compensate f/9 or f/11. What about the blur rendering of the wide apertures ? What about the function of the AF in low light? I've been using an RF 100-500 for one year and then I bought back an EF 2.8/300 because there are some situations f6.3 or 7.1 just cannot handle.

 

[David - Sydney]

It's funny to read ISO capabilities can compensate f/9 or f/11. What about the blur rendering of the wide apertures ? What about the function of the AF in low light? I've been using an RF 100-500 for one year and then I bought back an EF 2.8/300 because there are some situations f6.3 or 7.1 just cannot handle.

All about your budget (and ability to cope with weight/size etc)... Sure, you can get better optics, reduced ISO and more pleasant bokeh but at what cost/size/weight? Proportionately, there are many that could afford the RF100-500 vs those that can afford the EF300/2.8 (or RF100-300)... including myself.
I tell myself that it is better to get the shot - even with more noise - than not getting the shot because I didn't have the right lens.

 

[David - Sydney]

Sorry, this just isn't true. Only Olympus, or now OM System, or something like that, give an actual IP rating. So when a lens says it is weather sealed, you have no idea to what degree, as none are actually waterproofed, or gas purged, like a pair of binoculars. Weather sealing means many things. The most basic type is an O ring gasket around the lens mount, but no sealing rings elsewhere on the lens. This stops simple ingress of water through the lens mount. Then there are lenses, which have other sealing rings on the lens itself. This is not a matter of higher grade gear, as cheaper or independent lenses can have weatherproofing. But there is no accepted standard of what this is, unless it is IP rated, which gives an actual indication of what that level of proofing is.

Many internet commenters, spout about L lenses, as if they are special. True, they are Canon's top line lenses, but I know of no publicly released criteria for L lenses, even if internet commenters think there is some. Until the 100-500mm f7.1 L, many opined that L lenses had to be f5.6 or faster, and were instantly proven wrong, when Canon produced an L lens, which was f7.1. If you had read my comment, you would have seen that the Sony and Nikon 180/200-600mm zooms, are both fully weather sealed (this means O ring gaskets around the whole lens, not just on the mount - not that they are totally waterproof). In fact, if you read the manuals of most lenses with claimed weather sealing, it says never to expose them to water. This is to cover themselves, because all weather sealing is only partial, as it is not true water-proofing, to a certain pressure level. So at some point, all will leak. In other words, if you try to make a claim, because your weather sealed lens leaked, you won't get anywhere, as the manufacturer can say they warned you, not to expose it to water.

Canon has a reputation that their L lenses have excellent weather proofing capabilities even without a IP rating. Uncle Roger's teardowns are a great read

Don't get me wrong as it is great to have a rating and OM has a great reputation but it is rare that any photographer puts it to the test even on an irregular basis.
But... the rating is for a specific test and if you have a scenario where the angle of the water is different then the IP rating is meaningless. eg OM may quote IP53 rating, meaning that they're protected against dust, in so much as their inner workings won't be compromised if dust were to get inside. They're also protected against spraying water, with no pressure when tilted up to a 60-degree angle

iPhone 15 can withstand submersion in fresh water for up to 30 minutes and at a depth of 6 meters as per IP68 but 6m is a static depth rating and just moving it to pick it up will increase the pressure.

If you are regularly needing weather proofing then consider the Ikelite or Nauticam etc protection systems. They don't have an IP rating but 60m depth in salt water is good enough for me. Admittedly, some telephoto lenses wouldn't fit their maximum port diameter of 105mm.

 

[EricN]

It's funny to read ISO capabilities can compensate f/9 or f/11. What about the blur rendering of the wide apertures ? What about the function of the AF in low light? I've been using an RF 100-500 for one year and then I bought back an EF 2.8/300 because there are some situations f6.3 or 7.1 just cannot handle.

Two easy solutions are to select your position more carefully or simulate bokeh with software.

 

[blackcoffee17]

It's funny to read ISO capabilities can compensate f/9 or f/11. What about the blur rendering of the wide apertures ? What about the function of the AF in low light? I've been using an RF 100-500 for one year and then I bought back an EF 2.8/300 because there are some situations f6.3 or 7.1 just cannot handle.

I'm not sure what you people complain about. F9 too dark at 800m? Ok, but what are the other options? Nikon 800 6.3 for 6k?

What about the blur rendering of the wide apertures

800mm a F9 will obliterate any background. Similar DOF to 400mm 2.8 and nobody complains about that.

 

[MuzzaPuppa]

Hope it lives up to your expectations. The early shots that DPR put up weren't that stunningly sharp.

Its pretty sharp and I wouldn't knock it until you've actually used it, I own both Canons and Nikons and lucky enough to get my hands on the 600PF. Its a lovely lens, very light and is sharp with very nice rendering. Obviously horses for courses though, it's a prime not a zoom so it all depends on what you are looking for I guess.