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

[InchMetric]

You don't have other options to get to 2400mm or 1600mm. These are very niche lenses that most will rend for that one special occasion they know they'll be used. This to me looks very much like they aren't expecting to shift a lot of them so it is special tooling. By using the 400 and 600 as base lenses it has likely drastically reduced the cost while also making sure of parts availability.

Why not a 3x or 4x extender for the same result for, say $800, instead of an $8000 premium?

I’m a Questar telescope restorer and collector. When we want to get more power from a $2000 or $20,000 telescope we spend $200 for a shorter focal length eyepiece. Which works for visual and covers a full 35mm frame.

 

[InchMetric]

Are they really selling us a 5 to 7 thousand dollar teleconverter? Is there really no significant difference between the 400 and 600 with 2xTCs other than the massive price hike, and if so, how do they sleep at night? What am I missing?

You’re missing the signal that prices (on the 400 and 600) are going up. A lot.

$1000-$2000 each.

400 $13k
600 $15k
800 $17k
1200 $20k

Get it?
I just contracted to buy a 400 I don’t exactly need but know I will eventually want for this reason. Used with a nice discount because it’s not in stock.

My rule of thumb is to buy used when it’s 20% off, and this purchase is 20% off of next years prices.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You don't have other options to get to 2400mm or 1600mm.

Why not a 3x or 4x extender for the same result for, say $800, instead of an $8000 premium?

Can you provide a link to a 3x or 4x extender that is compatible with RF lenses and sells for, say $800? It was pretty obvious that @Photo Bunny means options that exist in the real world, not options that exist in your imagination.

 

[Dragon]

It is nothing to do with the "EU slapping on some Brexit retribution" - Nikon and Sony do not have that mark up in the UK as I have to point out every time this comes up and some sceptic tries to excuse it. It is quite simply Canon Europe's price gouging. It used to happen when we were in the EU and before the time there wasn't enforced price uniformity.

I know nothing of Nikon's setup and not sure where Sony is today, but Sony used to have a very large operation in Basingstoke with a significant engineering group that did real design work (very unusual for a Japanese company). That operation was pretty much the base of European operations for Sony and therefore there was not two-step distribution in the UK. I think if you translate what you are getting back from Canon UK, they are simply saying that Canon Europe is treating them just like any other dealer and because they, in turn, also have dealers, stuff costs more since Canon UK also has to have a margin to survive. Sounds like a nasty bit of internal politics to me and you are on the blunt end.

 

[sanj]

Might depend on the markets (countries) and on what you call "premium lenses".
I got some nice discounts on a few lenses, like EF 1,4/85, EF 100-400, EF 2/135, EF 16-85 etc...usually discounts plus cashback.

Getting a discount and Canon reducing its prices are two different things.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Canon's RF lens prices have been weird of date. The new RF 70-200mm f2.8's price is an example. They are charging a premium because they can and people will buy them. Look at the price difference between the EF400mm f2.8 II LIS and the optically identical RF version. The difference is essentially a bolted on EF to RF adapter. The new RF 800mm f5.6 is rumoured to be a EF400mm f2.8 III L with a custom 2x TC and RF adapter bolted on....for $4K and the new 1200mm f8 is rumoured to be an EF 600mm f4 III LIS re-purposed with a similar 2x TC and RF adapted bolted on. Canon looks like they are re-using old and re-selling old stock with over priced adaptions. If people don't buy them because they were overpriced to start with, then Canon will re-purpose them and try to sell them for even more kidding their market that these are all "new" lenses.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Yowch....swing & a miss....ya'all see the MTFs? Just buy the shorter lens & the extender and you get equivalent performance (plus more versatility of also having the shorter lens if you need it)

Interesting that Canon haven't released the optical block chart diagrams...ohhh....look Canon have re-used the old lens formula and slapped a custom tele on it...lol...

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Why not a 3x or 4x extender for the same result for, say $800, instead of an $8000 premium?

I’m a Questar telescope restorer and collector. When we want to get more power from a $2000 or $20,000 telescope we spend $200 for a shorter focal length eyepiece. Which works for visual and covers a full 35mm frame.

Why are you asking me?

 

[davidcl0nel]

Can you provide a link to a 3x or 4x extender that is compatible with RF lenses and sells for, say $800? It was pretty obvious that @Photo Bunny means options that exist in the real world, not options that exist in your imagination.

Canon wants to sell a RF lens, not me.

There are some more possibilities like using an "old" EF 600mm III (identical optic, isn't?) and stack as many EF 2x II (not III) extenders together as you want. f/64 to go!
Yes, I know about limits of stacking extenders, but this wasn't the question here.

 

[InchMetric]

Interesting that Canon haven't released the optical block chart diagrams...ohhh....look Canon have re-used the old lens formula and slapped a custom tele on it...lol...

The “old lens formula” is a recent state-of-the-art design. All made and sold brand new.

 

[Del Paso]

Getting a discount and Canon reducing its prices are two different things.

Right, but cashback is a Canon thing!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon wants to sell a RF lens, not me.

There are some more possibilities like using an "old" EF 600mm III (identical optic, isn't?) and stack as many EF 2x II (not III) extenders together as you want. f/64 to go!
Yes, I know about limits of stacking extenders, but this wasn't the question here.

Obviously there are other possibilities, the one I have tried personally is using both the RF 2x and the EF 2x III behind a 600/4 II for a 2400mm f/16 lens.

My point was that a 3x or 4x extender are not among those possibilities.

 

[NorskHest]

I can’t imagine buying the version 3 400 and or 600 which is softer than the version 2 ef lenses then adding magnification to a lens that is not as sharp and has less contrast for effectively double what you could get a used one for

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The “old lens formula” is a recent state-of-the-art design. All made and sold brand new.

Actually, the 400mm f2.8 LIS III is a 5 year old design that was brought out quickly to match the Sony FE 400mmm f2.8 GM OSS that beat the previous Mk II Canon on every measurable metric. The mk II is a great lens, but it was blind sided by the Sony and the mk III needed to match it. To re-use this 5 year old design by adding an extra internal teleconverter to the previous lens and touting it as a "NEW" 800mm f5.6 is hardly state of the art lens design. Words like "Fudged" and "knock it out to market...hope no one notices" comes to mind.

 

[InchMetric]

Actually, the 400mm f2.8 LIS III is a 5 year old design that was brought out quickly to match the Sony FE 400mmm f2.8 GM OSS that beat the previous Mk II Canon on every measurable metric. The mk II is a great lens, but it was blind sided by the Sony and the mk III needed to match it. To re-use this 5 year old design by adding an extra internal teleconverter to the previous lens and touting it as a "NEW" 800mm f5.6 is hardly state of the art lens design. Words like "Fudged" and "knock it out to market...hope no one notices" comes to mind.

Thanks for sharing your mind-reading exploits with the Canon decision makers.

I also note that this "5-year-old" design was released 38 months ago. Maybe get a refund on your calendar?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I also note that this "5-year-old" design was released 38 months ago. Maybe get a refund on your calendar?

So in your personal reality, complicated, expensive products are released immediately after they are designed. Probably you’ve acquired all your business knowledge for free on the Internet, so fortunately you do not need to feel obligated to refund anyone for that. At least you got what you paid for.

 

[SnowMiku]

As someone who photographs wildlife for a living, I truly don’t understand the purpose of a 1200 f/8. We need light. I can’t remember the last time I shot over 5.6 for a wildlife shot. Dramatic light equals a dramatic photograph and f8 won’t be able to do this. Also, I don’t care how big your lens is, your subject has to be fairly close. The further away they are the more atmospheric conditions you are looking through, in other words, your photo turns to mush.

1200mm @ f/8 would still give a good shallow depth of field and the R6, R5 and R3 would be capable of handling the extra stop. I agree about the atmospheric conditions with the far distance shots.

 

[john1970]

One advantage of the new 800 mm f5.6 vs. 600 mm f4 with 1.4x TC is the much closer focusing distance, which is great if you can get close enough to your subject for wildlife portraits.

 

[AlanF]

One advantage of the new 800 mm f5.6 vs. 600 mm f4 with 1.4x TC is the much closer focusing distance, which is great if you can get close enough to your subject for wildlife portraits.

The 800mm f/5.6 has the same minimum focus distance as the 400mm f/2.8 + RF 2x.

 

[David_E]

Continue reading...

$17k for the 800? Probably not the lens for me. My RF 800mm ƒ11 IS STM is quite satisfactory for my minimal requirements for a long telephoto. Here's a photo of a northern flicker, Colaptes auratus, made just yesterday with that lens on an R5. Hand held. Body + lens stabilization are excellent.

https://flic.kr/p/2n7A7Rs