Canon announces the RF 800mm F5.6L IS USM and the RF 1200mm F8L IS USM

[mxwphoto]

Of course, this is rational. Leica did it in 1996 with the modular Apo-Telyt-System.

View attachment 202599

At face value, that looked awesome until I realized

Of course, this is rational. Leica did it in 1996 with the modular Apo-Telyt-System.

View attachment 202599

I saw it and thought awesome until I realized it is essentially Leica selling a 280mm and 400mm 2.8 lens but forcing you to buy the entire back half of the elements groups separately rather than just adding teleconverter for each focal length so they can charge you more money for duplicate glass.

 

[AlanF]

Of course, this is rational. Leica did it in 1996 with the modular Apo-Telyt-System.

View attachment 202599

It is rational for Canon to minimise costs by just cannibalising old designs, but does it give the best IQ for the customer and is it any advantage to buying 400 or 600 with extenders for much less money and more flexibility? I think this is what the discussion is about.

 

[Berowne]

It is rational for Canon to minimise costs by just cannibalising old designs, but does it give the best IQ for the customer and is it any advantage to buying 400 or 600 with extenders for much less money and more flexibility? I think this is what the discussion is about.

Perhaps it cannot be made better for any reasonable price?
Actually Uncle Rog wrote a nice Blog-Post just about this question: Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens

 

[Pixel]

Get a 2x and save your money

 

[xps]

Prices in Germany:
RF 800: 19.949€
RF1200: 23.449€
(My trusted local Dealer in Frankfurt am Main)

Incredible. Sorry, but this is to much for 200mm more reach. My RF600+extender will do an great job too and I´ll save thousands of Euros. And better spend some of this to NPO/NGOs that do help the Ucrainian people.

P.s.: To be honest, my older EF 600mm Version II is still a little bit sharper than my RF version. Wheight reduction is welcome, but in my opinion it will take another version to be optimized to get beyond the sharpness of the 600 II.

 

[AlanF]

Perhaps it cannot be made better for any reasonable price?
Actually Uncle Rog wrote a nice Blog-Post just about this question: Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens

I'm old enough to be his uncle. I love his writing style as well as its content. He really does understand lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is rational for Canon to minimise costs by just cannibalising old designs, but does it give the best IQ for the customer and is it any advantage to buying 400 or 600 with extenders for much less money and more flexibility? I think this is what the discussion is about.

I think this is the only rationale that makes sense, given the designs and the MTF comparisons:

The advantage for the RF 800/1200 would be the ability to further add teleconverters to these new lenses and get up to 1600mm and 2400mm reach.

Even then, I don’t see how the IQ with an extender on the 800/1200 will be better than stacking extenders on the 400/600 (which isn’t all that great, as I found). But keeping infinity focus is an advantage.

 

[scyrene]

I'm currently using the cheapo RF 800mm F11 for a lot of my bird photography, and for most situations I don't find the fixed F11 aperture limiting. Even at F11 depth of field is very shallow and nearly always enough to isolate the subject nicely from the background.

The only practical limitation is the focusing speed, which is slower than when using my EF100-400mm with 1.4x extender, so I use usually the zoom when shooting BIF, and the 800mm F11 when shooting perching birds and waders.

Ultimately, I'll probably end up with the RF 100-500mm and 1.4x extender, but I'm also using a 5DMkiv, so until I get around to replacing that with another RF body, I'll be sticking with the EF zoom.

I don't see much point personally in going beyond 800mm focal length, because atmospheric haze and/or heat haze often have a major negative impact on subject sharpness if the latter is more than 100m away - this is particularly noticeable in Africa, and in coastal locations at home in the UK, even quite early in the mornings, when most of my bird photography is done.

I'm hoping to get the 800 f/11 myself. The 100-500 sounds great but the price is higher than I'd be prepared to pay.

 

[Del Paso]

If this 1200 mm is just a 600 mm plus 2X extender, its price (Euro 23449) is a steal.
Literally spoken!

 

[entoman]

I'm hoping to get the 800 f/11 myself. The 100-500 sounds great but the price is higher than I'd be prepared to pay.

You'll be amazed at how good the stabilisation is when using the 800mm F11 on a R6, R5 or R3

 

[Jethro]

... I don’t see how the IQ with an extender on the 800/1200 will be better than stacking extenders on the 400/600 (which isn’t all that great, as I found).

I guess that will be the litmus test, once there are examples out there for in-depth reviews of the resulting IQ. Otherwise you'd be paying a huge premium for integration and (potentially marginal) additional IQ in unstacked usage. Weight reduction is obviously another advantage.

 

[AlanF]

I'm hoping to get the 800 f/11 myself. The 100-500 sounds great but the price is higher than I'd be prepared to pay.

Having the 800/11 and the RF 100-400mm makes a very good kit for nature photography. I have both and love the 100-400 because it is so sharp and light. I also have the RF 100-500mm, and it's an exceptional lens if you can afford it.

 

[[email protected]]

You'll be amazed at how good the stabilisation is when using the 800mm F11 on a R6, R5 or R3

That triggered a thought. I own the 800 f/11, and it's a peach. Stabilization is fantastic. In bright light, I love it.

So why is it that the new "RF" supertelephoto lenses cannot do the integrated IS dance with the IBIS if the 800mm f/11 can? Canon specifically noted in its press release regarding the 800 and 1200 that there is less benefit in the supertelephoto range. But, huh? The 800 f/11 seems to thrive with it.

The only reason I can think of is that the RF big white supertelephoto are really EF lenses with RF adapters inside (said with the gesture of clutching my pearls). This would cut contact connections between accelerometers at the ends of the lens and the RF mount. In other words, if they'd just cheaped out a little less, we'd have hybrid IS as good as the 800 f/11 in the new big whites?

 

[Dragon]

Here is everything I dug up on Canon Japan including the MTFs of these lenses and the EF Mark III/2xTCIII (no MTFs exist for the RF 2x and the RF 400/600).
1200:
View attachment 202588
600:
View attachment 202589
800:
View attachment 202590
400:
View attachment 202591
RF 2xTC:
View attachment 202596

1200:
View attachment 202592
600III/2xTCIII
View attachment 202593
800:
View attachment 202594
400III/2xTCIII:
View attachment 202595


I don't know about you but these look really similar with just a slight edge for these new optics over using a 2xTC on the Mark III lenses. Probably using an RF TC on RF400/600 would be identical to these new lenses because people claim the RF TCs are a step above the EFIIIs.

These lenses are just built in 2xTCs.

I see these being used by governments, survelience or maybe wildlife videographers that would add additional TCs to these for the super long reach. But for stills photography I'd save the $$$ and buy a 400 or 600 and use the 2xTC to get these focal lengths given the price and the MTFs.

The only difference I see is that one extra UD element just ahead of the "TC" element.

Bravo on the research work. The new "magnifier" optics are theoretically slightly better than the external TC, but not enough to write home about. It probably helps with CA enough that adding a further TC doesn't make a complete mess of the image. I think the underlying question will be how carefully parts are selected to get as close as possible to the theoretical numbers. Statistically, that could make a significant difference, but the starting point doesn't augur for very stunning performance with a 2x TC or even a 1.4 for that matter. The EF 800 is better and much better in the center


EF800mm f/5.6 L



The RF 800 f/11 isn't as good in the corners, but frankly, not that much worse in the center.


So the only real selling point is light weight (and a much lighter wallet).

Bottom line, I will hang on to my EF 800 (and my RF 800 f/11).

EDIT.
For apples to apples, here is the EF 800 MTF chart from the Canon Japan site in presumably the "new" more rigorous MTF chart format that Canon has been using for the last few years and still a little better in the center than the new one.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That triggered a thought. I own the 800 f/11, and it's a peach. Stabilization is fantastic. In bright light, I love it.

So why is it that the new "RF" supertelephoto lenses cannot do the integrated IS dance with the IBIS if the 800mm f/11 can? Canon specifically noted in its press release regarding the 800 and 1200 that there is less benefit in the supertelephoto range. But, huh? The 800 f/11 seems to thrive with it.

The only reason I can think of is that the RF big white supertelephoto are really EF lenses with RF adapters inside (said with the gesture of clutching my pearls). This would cut contact connections between accelerometers at the ends of the lens and the RF mount. In other words, if they'd just cheaped out a little less, we'd have hybrid IS as good as the 800 f/11 in the new big whites?

Physics. I think you’re inflating the importance of IBIS with the 800/11. IBIS is simply not very effective at long focal lengths, because the sensor cannot be moved far or fast enough to compensate for the angular motion. Ten times the sensor movement would be required to compensate for the same shake at 800mm as at 80mm.

Here is some info from Canon:

8-stops Image Stabilization - Canon Europe

With a market-leading 8-stops of Image Stabilization, Canon's EOS R5 and EOS R6 rewrite the photographic rulebook. Find out how it's possible, and what it means for you.

www.canon-europe.com

 

[entoman]

That triggered a thought. I own the 800 f/11, and it's a peach. Stabilization is fantastic. In bright light, I love it.

So why is it that the new "RF" supertelephoto lenses cannot do the integrated IS dance with the IBIS if the 800mm f/11 can? Canon specifically noted in its press release regarding the 800 and 1200 that there is less benefit in the supertelephoto range. But, huh? The 800 f/11 seems to thrive with it.

The only reason I can think of is that the RF big white supertelephoto are really EF lenses with RF adapters inside (said with the gesture of clutching my pearls). This would cut contact connections between accelerometers at the ends of the lens and the RF mount. In other words, if they'd just cheaped out a little less, we'd have hybrid IS as good as the 800 f/11 in the new big whites?

Most seem to agree that with long focal lengths, the OIS does the bulk of the stabilisation.
So maybe it's just that the super-light 800mm F11 just has far more efficient OIS than is possible with the big heavy elements in big whites that are based on EF designs. Just guessin'

Edit - I see neuro pipped me to the post on this and went into the detail.

 

[padam]

So why is it that the new "RF" supertelephoto lenses cannot do the integrated IS dance with the IBIS if the 800mm f/11 can? Canon specifically noted in its press release regarding the 800 and 1200 that there is less benefit in the supertelephoto range. But, huh? The 800 f/11 seems to thrive with it.

It does not the 600/11 800/11 also use lens IS only, IBIS is never enabled. Still works well as-is but probably not as effective as with the 100-500/4.5-7.1 that does support combined IS.

The new Nikon 400/2.8 Z lens supports Syncro VR but only with the Z9, not with their earlier mirrorless cameras.
Maybe Canon's later cameras will have a different IBIS that may work better with certain supertelephoto lenses and until then it is lens IS only, we don't know.

 

[entoman]

It does not the 600/11 800/11 also use lens IS only, IBIS is never enabled. Still works well as-is but probably not as effective as with the 100-500/4.5-7.1 that does support combined IS.

The new Nikon 400/2.8 Z lens supports Syncro VR but only with the Z9, not with their earlier mirrorless cameras.
Maybe Canon's later cameras will have a different IBIS that may work better with certain supertelephoto lenses and until then it is lens IS only, we don't know.

Yes, come to think of it, I did read somewhere that IBIS is auto-disabled when using the RF 600mm F11 and RF 800mm F11.

 

[night-timer]

Looks like these lenses are already getting very mixed reviews based on their price and the fact that they may not be new designs, just older/shorter lenses with a built-in 2x TC.

Paparazzi photographers chasing a big 'scoop' will use the 800... it's being done already with the EF 800/5.6... but generally paps preferred the 500/4 EF over the 600/4 EF, because it's much lighter than the 600.

I did my long lens pap shots with a 300/2.8 plus 2x TC and the 1.3x crop factor of the 1D MkIV body - effective 780mm.

A lot of press/pro shooters get pushed in a pap direction because there's a demand for those types of images, like it or not.

 

[dolina]

Get a 2x and save your money

View attachment 202600

Now do the 800mm vs 400mm too!