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

[blackcoffee17]

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).

I currently don't have any system and looking to get back into photography. It's 50/50 at the moment between Nikon and Canon. Lenses like this might make me decide between one or the other. Now you might think it's nonsense but I'm not the only person deciding on which system to invest in.

 

[AlanF]

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

I use the simple equations for a thin lens, as you can approximate the complex lens to this. If the lens has a focal length f, the distance from the lens to the subject is u, the lens to the sensor is v, then 1/v + 1/u = 1/f. The magnification m is given by m = v/u. The distance, d, to the subject is always measured from the sensor. So, d = u + v. You just do the algebra with these. Eg, if as I recall from memory, the magnification of the RF 100-300mm at the mfd of 1800 mm is 0.16, then u + 0.16u = 1800, so u = 1800/1.16, = 1552mm, v =248mm. So, 1/f = 1/1552 + 1/248.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I currently don't have any system and looking to get back into photography. It's 50/50 at the moment between Nikon and Canon. Lenses like this might make me decide between one or the other. Now you might think it's nonsense but I'm not the only person deciding on which system to invest in.

Of course you're not. But compared to the nearly 3 million interchangeable lens cameras that Canon sells every year, the number of people looking to decide between one system and another and seriously entertaining the possibility of buying a lens costing >$2K is insignificant.

Of course, the only number of people that should matter to you is one. Get the system you think will best meet your needs. The reality is that any current camera system will enable you take excellent images.

 

[EricN]

I currently don't have any system and looking to get back into photography. It's 50/50 at the moment between Nikon and Canon. Lenses like this might make me decide between one or the other. Now you might think it's nonsense but I'm not the only person deciding on which system to invest in.

If I had to decide, I would figure out my budget that I'm willing to spend and then see what I would buy with that amount depending on Nikon or Canon.
Whatever you decide, I think you'll be happy enough with either company

 

[EricN]

I use the simple equations for a thin lens, as you can approximate the complex lens to this. If the lens has a focal length f, the distance from the lens to the subject is u, the lens to the sensor is v, then 1/v + 1/u = 1/f. The magnification m is given by m = v/u. The distance, d, to the subject is always measured from the sensor. So, d = u + v. You just do the algebra with these. Eg, if as I recall from memory, the magnification of the RF 100-300mm at the mfd of 1800 mm is 0.16, then u + 0.16u = 1800, so u = 1800/1.16, = 1552mm, v =248mm. So, 1/f = 1/1552 + 1/248.

Thanks! I think I understandit much better now. Tomorrow being Halloween, I might not find time try using it until November first

 

[P-visie]

If I had to decide, I would figure out my budget that I'm willing to spend and then see what I would buy with that amount depending on Nikon or Canon.
Whatever you decide, I think you'll be happy enough with either company

And take a look at the future prospects of the company, i.e. Nikon currently has a +/- 14% marketshare. Is that enough to stay competitive and maintain innovation?

 

[David - Sydney]

And take a look at the future prospects of the company, i.e. Nikon currently has a +/- 14% marketshare. Is that enough to stay competitive and maintain innovation?

I believe that Nikon will be around for a long time to come.
Their current innovation in bodies and lenses is very competitive and even with existing products, I reckon they would last another decade.
I can't imagine a situation where no one would buy the company if Nikon had serious financial difficulties.
If OM/Panasonic/Fiji/Leica etc can carve out small but profitable market segments then Nikon should be okay.

 

[MuzzaPuppa]

And take a look at the future prospects of the company, i.e. Nikon currently has a +/- 14% marketshare. Is that enough to stay competitive and maintain innovation?

The short answer is of course...yes. They are already providing some excellent innovation and have a very very competitive system. I have mentioned above that I am lucky enough to have both systems (Z and R) and work mainly shooting sports (with wildlife, landscape and astro as my hobby stuff). At the moment (considering I have access in the office to the big whites and all of Nikon's Z telephotos) I pretty much pick the Z9 every time for sports. Their 400 2.8 with built in TC is unmatched by anyone at the moment its a no brainer for me that I can switch between a 400 2.8 and 560 f 4 within a millisecond on the fly while shooting. It's different class. The rest of the telephotos Nikon has are also incredible offerings. I love the image quality coming out of the 100-500 but it certainly never feels as exciting as the current nikon tele offerings. To reiterate I use both systems and they both are great but if I was looking at a system to invest in at the moment I would likely pick the Nikon if I was looking at shooting longer lens stuff (which I guess those in this tread are). Nikon are a smaller company and have a smaller market share but I think they will be around for a while yet.

 

[scyrene]

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.

The venerable EF 300mm f/4L was a well-liked "budget" option; 600mm f/8 is the same ratio.

 

[AlanF]

The short answer is of course...yes. They are already providing some excellent innovation and have a very very competitive system. I have mentioned above that I am lucky enough to have both systems (Z and R) and work mainly shooting sports (with wildlife, landscape and astro as my hobby stuff). At the moment (considering I have access in the office to the big whites and all of Nikon's Z telephotos) I pretty much pick the Z9 every time for sports. Their 400 2.8 with built in TC is unmatched by anyone at the moment its a no brainer for me that I can switch between a 400 2.8 and 560 f 4 within a millisecond on the fly while shooting. It's different class. The rest of the telephotos Nikon has are also incredible offerings. I love the image quality coming out of the 100-500 but it certainly never feels as exciting as the current nikon tele offerings. To reiterate I use both systems and they both are great but if I was looking at a system to invest in at the moment I would likely pick the Nikon if I was looking at shooting longer lens stuff (which I guess those in this tread are). Nikon are a smaller company and have a smaller market share but I think they will be around for a while yet.

Nikon makes superb gear. But, it's clearly relegated itself to a niche market. The Z8 and Z9 are big and heavy as are its longer telephotos and they are also very pricey. They are targeted at the very keen, strong and wealthy.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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

Sigma does not claim their lenses like that are fully weather-sealed sealed but reviewers just look for the O ring gasket.
Of course, "fully weather-sealed" just means sealed at the front and back.
It does not mean any and every weather condition.
I wish they were all certified like OM but not enough to buy OM gear.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Both also come with hoods

I will believe weather-sealing more than it coming with a hood.
As much as people complain, I think purchasing a hood separately is a minor inconvenience.
I guess my biggest complaint would be the extra packaging but then again they are not making extra hoods for people who would never use them.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The venerable EF 300mm f/4L was a well-liked "budget" option; 600mm f/8 is the same ratio.

I would have bought an RF 600 f/8.
I have an RF 800 f/11 but 600 f/11 was not desirable for me.
At the same time, I do realize that the size and weight of the RF 600 f/11 is why other people find that one desirable.
It also would have cost a lot more.

 

[sanj]

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.

$1500 is unlikely. It is too low.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

So are Sony and Nikon weather sealed or not?

They are but they are not certified.
What degree of weather sealing is dubious.

 

[neuroanatomist]

$1500 is unlikely. It is too low.

I never thought I'd be able to buy a new, OEM, high quality 100-400mm zoom for $500. But I did.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

And take a look at the future prospects of the company, i.e. Nikon currently has a +/- 14% marketshare. Is that enough to stay competitive and maintain innovation?

That depends on whether the market expands or contracts.
In a contracting market, 100% is not enough to maintain innovation.
What innovations would you like to see?
Cameras are about as good as I can see them needing to be for my needs innovation-wise,
They just need to combine their best features into one camera.
After that, I won't care if they ever innovate again.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If OM/Panasonic/Fiji/Leica etc can carve out small but profitable market segments then Nikon should be okay.

Innovation at OM is in question.
They have not released anything yet that was not a rebranded Olympus camera.
As long as they share a mount with Panasonic I am not sure if that even matters much,

 

[Cmam]

Lens of interest! I doubt if I will ever put a TC on it. 800mm with a 50mpx camera is adequate for my work. Besides, I do not think this lens will give great IQ with a TC.

I doubt you will see 50 MP worth of details at f9, as it is diffraction limited. According to the calculator (https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/diffraction-limited-effective-resolutions/) you will get only around half of that, best case.

 

[scyrene]

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

I'm a big fan of narrow aperture superteles but with respect, most of the time one's position is "selected" by the subject (eg the bird). I'm also not a fan of fake bokeh, though it can work in some situations.