Canon is thinking about more lenses like the RF 600mm f/11 STM and RF 800mm f/11 STM

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
821
912
Kentucky, USA
The f/16 on the R5 would be getting so far into diffraction limitation it would have hardly any more resolution than the 800/11 and getting very dark. At the other extreme, the 400/4 DO is performing really well on the R5, but it’s neither cheap nor very small.
How would you compare the 800 f11 to a 1200 f16? Would you use a 1.4x TC to make it 1320 f15.4? That's still not 1400 and basically f16 and you have all those extra TC elements to muddy up the image further. If you instead crop the 800 f11 by 1.5x then you have a 1200 f16.5 with only 44% of the pixels used, so you have to use software upsampling with its artifacts to get the same MP. Either way I think you would have an appreciably worse image than the 1200 f16.
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,273
3,531
Irving, Texas
How would you compare the 800 f11 to a 1200 f16? Would you use a 1.4x TC to make it 1320 f15.4? That's still not 1400 and basically f16 and you have all those extra TC elements to muddy up the image further. If you instead crop the 800 f11 by 1.5x then you have a 1200 f16.5 with only 44% of the pixels used, so you have to use software upsampling with its artifacts to get the same MP. Either way I think you would have an appreciably worse image than the 1200 f16.
But 800mm f/11 is still f/11 when you crop it (not f/15.4). Not the same as adding a TC at all. Let's not get into "bokeh equivalency" arguments on this one. You don't lose any stops of light when you crop. At that focal length, background blur isn't a problem if that is what one is looking for. I'm with you. I don't think I would even attempt a TC on one of these lenses.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
277
258
I had the RF 800mm on launch, but returned it to B&H. The lens had decent IQ and IS, but the f11 was too slow for shooting wildlife shortly after sunrise / before sunset. I also found the bokeh a little disappointing. I think these are great lenses that provide a good telephoto solutions for those who can't or choose not to purchase the f4's. Canon is basically giving us a low end solution in the $600-$800 range or professional quality in the $9,000-$13,000 range. I wish they would provide EF 400 f4 IS DO II type lenses in the middle. I would happily pay $5k - $7k for a 500/600 f4 IS DO with good image quality and bokeh. If they can do it for EF, they should be able to do it for RF. Seems like a missed market opportunity. I would also shell out good bucks for a RF 200-600 f4-f5.6 w/integrated TC to replace the EF 200-400 f4 L IS as long as it was 6.5lbs or less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso and tron

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
821
912
Kentucky, USA
But 800mm f/11 is still f/11 when you crop it. Not the same as adding a TC at all. Let's not get into "bokeh equivalency" arguments on this one. You don't lose any stops of light when you crop. At that focal length, background blur isn't a problem if that is what one is looking for.
OK, I guess we can all just crop our telephoto shots out the waazoo and get any super long mm range and claim the original f# of our modest tele lens. Thanks - we can all do that now! Woo-hoo!
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Joules

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,273
3,531
Irving, Texas
OK, I guess we can all just crop our telephoto shots out the wawzoo and get any super long mm range and claim the original f# of our modest tele lens. Thanks - we can all do that now! Woo-hoo!
That wasn't the point. The point is that cropping does not change the f/stop. It just doesn't. Adding a TC does. If I have an EF 400mm f/5.6L it does not matter whether or not I am using a FF or crop sensor... it is still f/5.6. So the "claim" is true. Says so in the EXIF too. ;)
 

Tony Bennett

EOS M50
CR Pro
Mar 8, 2017
49
58
I'm happy with my 800 f/11. We took it on vacation in October and we were able to photograph things we'd never been able to before. I'd consider picking up another focal length like a 400 f/8 if it were available.

Here are two photos of an elk in Rocky Mountain National Park in October 2020. One was at 70mm the other with the 800. I'm estimating the elk was about 250 yards or 750 feet away. The 800 is exactly what I wanted it to be. A telephoto lens that allowed my wife and I to get up close to everything we wanted without the expense of high end glass. I've never owned anything longer than the 70-200 because I don't earn a living with longer glass and I couldn't justify buying anything longer then the 70-200.
 

Attachments

  • vacationfall2020elk-3web.jpg
    vacationfall2020elk-3web.jpg
    514 KB · Views: 241
  • vacationfall2020elk-4web.jpg
    vacationfall2020elk-4web.jpg
    485 KB · Views: 244

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,475
3,856
But 800mm f/11 is still f/11 when you crop it (not f/15.4). Not the same as adding a TC at all. Let's not get into "bokeh equivalency" arguments on this one. You don't lose any stops of light when you crop. At that focal length, background blur isn't a problem if that is what one is looking for. I'm with you. I don't think I would even attempt a TC on one of these lenses.

That wasn't the point. The point is that cropping does not change the f/stop. It just doesn't. Adding a TC does. If I have an EF 400mm f/5.6L it does not matter whether or not I am using a FF or crop sensor... it is still f/5.6. So the "claim" is true. Says so in the EXIF too. ;)
Well, if it has the noise, dof, and subject movement of a full frame capture at f15.4 is it true to say “the aperture doesn’t change”? Sure the number in EXIF stays the same but by any visual measure cropping changes the aperture, as defined by area of acceptable focus, or light gathering power, or, indeed, the classic apparent focal length divided by apparent entrance pupil size.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,273
3,531
Irving, Texas
Well, if it has the noise, dof, and subject movement of a full frame capture at f15.4 is it true to say “the aperture doesn’t change”? Sure the number in EXIF stays the same but by any visual measure cropping changes the aperture, as defined by area of acceptable focus, or light gathering power, or, indeed, the classic apparent focal length divided by apparent entrance pupil size.
Doesn't the exposure triangle stay the same? By that I mean ISO, shutter speed, and f/stop? Cropping may well change the "bokeh", but doesn't change the aperture or the exposure. Other than that, I got nothing. ;) As far as noise, I almost never go above ISO 400 anyway, though I am sure others go way beyond that. So maybe I'd be better off saying, "for me."
 

illadvisedhammer

buggin out
CR Pro
Aug 19, 2015
26
8
What about thinking about EF-M customers. Or is that line dead now with no mention of anything for months
What about thinking about EF-M customers. Or is that line dead now with no mention of anything for months
I’m always thinking about this. The m6ii is our densest sensor, so a great tele tool. I’m pretty happy adapting a 300 4 IS with a 1.4 X teleconverter, so a 400 f8 wouldn’t increase range, especially as it negates the TC, but it might be so much smaller it gets used more often. Could it be as small as the 55-250 EF-S?
 

Tony Bennett

EOS M50
CR Pro
Mar 8, 2017
49
58
Here's another photo I took on vacation. Hand-held 1/800 iso 320. This is car wreckage on the Salt River in Arizona. The distance is 1.15 miles. The 800 f/11 enabled me to get this photo and be able to zoom in in Lightroom.
 

Attachments

  • vacationfall2020carwreck-1web.jpg
    vacationfall2020carwreck-1web.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 188
  • vacationfall2020carwreck-1webcrop.jpg
    vacationfall2020carwreck-1webcrop.jpg
    865.5 KB · Views: 200

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,475
3,856
Doesn't the exposure triangle stay the same? By that I mean ISO, shutter speed, and f/stop? Cropping may well change the "bokeh", but doesn't change the aperture or the exposure. Other than that, I got nothing. ;) As far as noise, I almost never go above ISO 400 anyway, though I am sure others go way beyond that. So maybe I'd be better off saying, "for me."
Well it depends what you refer to in the context of aperture really. If you are using it to define the settings the camera used, then yes they are the same. However if you are using it to describe the image you will see then cropping very much changes the aperture and 'equivalence' very much comes into the equation.

As soon as people crop and talk about 'an effective focal length' they open a can of worms

So when people say something like "shot on a ff camera @ 800mm, f8, 1/800 sec, at iso 400 and then cropped to 1/4 the size for an effective focal length of 1600mm" though they normally leave out the crop amount that is so important for context, they could just have accurately said "shot with a ff equivalent 1600mm, f16, 1/800, 1600iso". It really becomes a matter of context. You and I could stand on a large chess board and I could state quite correctly I am standing on white but around me is all black (to the left right forward and back) where you could be standing on a black square and say I had it all wrong!

I think photography is a visual medium so when we start to describe what we are doing/using it is fair to think of that in respect to the end visual result, in that context I believe it is very relevant and accurate to say cropping changes aperture, because in an actual image it 100% does.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,475
3,856
Put in context of Tony's picture and crop.

First image:- FF, 800mm, f11, iso 320.
Second image:- FF, 800mm, f11, iso 320, but cropped to 1/12 the size (a crop factor of 3.5) so ff equivalent of 2,800mm, f38.5, iso 1,120.

I believe that is more honest than just saying equivalent 2,800mm, f11. After all, if Canon said they'd make a 2,800mm f40 everyone would laugh, but Tony's picture proves it is actually usable.
 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
682
94
Here's another photo I took on vacation. Hand-held 1/800 iso 320. This is car wreckage on the Salt River in Arizona. The distance is 1.15 miles. The 800 f/11 enabled me to get this photo and be able to zoom in in Lightroom.
Sheesh, that sounds like a rough vacation. Glad to hear you walked away from that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tony Bennett

Rocksthaman

Eos R , R6 , R5
Jul 9, 2020
92
82
Smaller lenses in general would be nice. The cameras have ibis.

Smaller &lighter 15-35 , 24-70 and 1.4/1.8 primes without IS would be awesome. The E Mount has been killing this lane.
 

mb66energy

EOS R
Dec 18, 2011
1,476
356
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
I would like a f/4 200mm STM or nano-USM lens with good IS, e.g. 1:3 or 1:4 closeup and maybe 100 ... 120mm total length ...
This should be uncritical to produce and I would pay 600 EUR for it if it has very good IQ from f/4 on.
might replace my 70-200 f/4 lens which I like very much but which is used mostly on the 200mm side.
 
<-- start Taboola -->