A bit more information on the upcoming RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The only "limitation" for these small aperture lens not enough bokeh and cannot do low ISO high shutter speed images in low light. For non-professionals, I doubt the later use is always the norm. If you are an indoor sports photographer, you probably got those f4/f2.8 Big whites already. And they are usually shoot with tripod, so the weight from using "OLD ANCIENT" EF isn't a concern.
Handheld the RF100-400 at 400mm f8 1/10s is possible to get sharp shots...if this not enough to justify the tradeoff on spec sheet. I guess just go buy a E/Z mount and enjoy the weight of 100-400/50-400 that is only stop better at best. And enjoy inferior IBIS from SonNikon.
I use E-mount as well, but those "respect" is mainly from specwxxxres and those who don't know how to utilize the tools. Rely/Just look at f-numbers to judge a lens is....amateur
Sony 200-600 f5.6-6.3G is 1/3 brighter on the 200mm end, and this rumored 200-800 gets the 600-800mm focal length with only 1-stop dimmer than Sony's. If the form factor and weight is similar...this is an absolute win for RF users.
Upvote
0
I just used carbon fiber as an obvious example, but composites have come a long way in the last few years and many are affordable. I have Neewer gimbal head made of carbon fiber and it was only a little more than their aluminum one, so carbon fiber, per se, isn't that expensive. I would also note that hoods for big whites have always been very pricey, no matter what the material. As I noted above, Canon has high (astronomical) margins on peripherals.The hood for the RF 100-300/2.8 is carbon fiber. At $650, a replacement costs more than the recently discounted price of the RF 600/11. Somehow, I doubt this rumored lens will have a carbon fiber hood.
Upvote
0
I agree that 95mm filter is the most logical. I only threw out the possibility of a 105 because both the 600 f/11 and the 800 f/11 use much larger filters than actually needed, but this new lens at a much higher price point will likely have different construction than the first two.
Upvote
0
If you don't want the lens, don't buy it. If you are fed up with lenses that more people can afford, are lighter and can be hand held, well, too bad for you. You want an 800mm lens at f/4? Good luck carrying around a lens that's 200mm's in diameter. If you can't take a photo in low light at f/9, that is because you don't understand that with today's cameras and software, you can easily shoot at ISO 12800. If you are old enough to have shot film, where you were basically at IS0 400 max, then your f/11 today is equal to f/2 with ISO 400 film. Couldn't shoot at f/2 with film in low light?? Yeah, I think you could.
Upvote
0
It's interesting that so many reviwers miss out this specific information and how it's focus breathing affects focal length as the focus distance draws closer. It's almost as if Canon were lending out their early samples to reviwers with some specific contractual omisisons. We all know of the well published deficiencies of the ef 100-400mm f5.6 II L, which is suprising because the RF 100-500mm f7.1 L suffers from exactly the same issues but has escaped the "trial by youtube" commentators comments.
Upvote
0
I don't understand this rationale of the speculation about weather sealing, that only L lenses have weather sealing, so if it is not an L lens, it won't have weather sealing. Both the Sony and Nikon 180/200-600mm lenses have weather sealing, even if they are not in either of those system's top level lens lines. As this lens is obviously meant to compete with these 2 lenses, it would be a major oversight, not to have weather sealing. It would be very strange decision making by Canon, for a lens meant to be used primarily outdoors. I'm not saying Canon is not daft enough to do this, to keep some separation between it and say the 100-500mm L. But it would be pretty weird decision making, to design a lens, to have an edge over its rivals with more focal length, and then to deliberately put in a design flaw, over something very basic, that gave it a serious disadvantage compared to its rivals. These lenses, are the type of lens, that people buy into a system for. If you're a birder/wildlife photographer, who doesn't use the big lenses costing over ten grand, which is the majority, your main equipment, is your long lens and the camera that fits on it. Many don't carry anything else with them. Photographers like this, and many are primarily birders, naturalists, not photographers, generally tend to look at the lens first, and then a camera to go with it. So in terms of check list comparison, they would go, Nikon weather sealing, Sony weather sealing, Fuji weather sealing, m4/3 weather sealing, Canon, no weather sealing. As I say, I can't say Canon won't do this, but if they do, it will be a major marketing blunder.
Upvote
0
I am afraid it’s the laws of optics (the lensmakers equn) that focus breathing is an inevitable consequence for these long lenses. If you have your object 1000mm away from the sensor, your focal length must be 250mm or less to focus on the sensor. So, your 400 or 500mm lens has to focus breathe to focus down to a metre. It’s not a deficiency, it’s an inevitability.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
“Weather sealing” implies a very high degree of prevention against any dust and moisture ingress. Any consumer-grade lens should have some level of “weather resistance”, e.g., to protect against a light rain or condensation or other sources. But if you need to be shooting out in a deluge, you’re going to have to either use a cover or pay for a higher grade of gear with more robust construction.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
I see this lens a direct competitor to Sony's 200-600 and Nikon's 180-600 lenses. Both of those lenses claim to have some sort of weather resistance. Both also come with hoods and rotating tripod collars, which I see as essentials for a lens like this. I hope Canon's doesn't cheapen the build quality of this lens too much, and least have the hoods and collars ready to ship immediately with the lens.
Upvote
0