Canon releases firmware updates for 5 telephoto RF lenses

[neuroanatomist]

He confirmed that for some reason that is what he thought, yes.

Yep. Mainly, I was looking for an excuse for some photoshop fun...

 

[Toamelicious]

Do you honestly think @GMCPhotographics meant the RF 600/4 comprises two 600/4 III lenses either in series or in parallel?

View attachment 216047

Or are you just being pedantic? It seemed pretty clear that he meant the 600/4 III paired with the TC/adapter.

Most overpowered binoculars ever!

 

[mimbu]

I think it's fair to say the level of effort, or lack thereof, that Canon has put into the genre is what many wildlife shooters (myself included) are disappointed with from Canon. Canon used to be known as THE brand of choice for wildlife photography. Look at any of the NatGeo photographers I grew up admiring and they were mostly Canon shooters. Now, we have some of those legacy shooters still around and indeed some of their children have inherited their brand of choice, but for the most part Canon has de-prioritized and I'd say even neglected the pro wildlife photography community. The welded on adapters and TCs in these lenses for their new mount took about as little effort as possible from the company, which tells you where they've prioritized the genre. The lenses don't have all the little details that the other RF lenses have like the dedicated control ring because they were not designed for the new mount—they're older parts and welded on, and they're charging you more for the privilege.

Sony is just as bad, frankly, although at least they have newly designed lenses for their mount. But the lack of options for wildlife shooters with Sony is just as embarrassing. Clearly these two are seeing this new competitive relationship as the old Nikon vs. Canon of the 20th century, ignoring Nikon altogether. And yet Nikon is the only one who's actually putting effort into new, serious wildlife options for their mount. The built-in TCs for the large primes, combined with the PFs for the mid-tier, which retain professional quality, and they've even got the zooms to round out the lineup. It's not even close, frankly, and Canon should be ashamed of the fact that they've lost this much ground and respect from the wildlife community. Most wildlife shooters are going with Nikon if starting today, and that's going to catch up with Canon in the long run for this genre as people become invested in the system with these larger lens purchases.

Just my two cents. I'm clearly frustrated with Canon's choices here and gave up waiting around for them to get it together. But I'm hopeful they'll eventually catch up, as they usually do at their own pace. If you like slow zooms then Canon is your choice right now, which is great for those starting out. Otherwise you're paying $10k for stop gaps with limited options and quality.

Nikon has definitely done the most for wildlife photographers on mirrorless, especially anyone who wants primes but doesn't have an unlimited budget. The 600/6.3 and 800/6.3 are absolutely incredible lenses, and the prices, while not cheap, are at least attainable.

The Sigma 500/5.6 on E mount is also an amazing lens, though the lack of TC support due to mount license restricitons is a disappointment. Sigma really nailed it, it's smaller and lighter than the Nikkor F mount 500/5.6, but without using PF/DO type optics. It's a marvalous lens, and only $3k. I hope they also bring out the 400/5 and 700/8 designs that they patented together with the 500/5.6.

Sony made a development announcement for an 800/5.6GM that will be coming later this year [edit: I thought there was a development announcement for it but it seems to only have been a rumor. Maybe not coming this year], and the 300/2.8GM is a stunning lens. The 400/2.8GM is a 2018 lens, and the 600/4 is from 2019. It seems reasonable that the 400/2.8 will be replaced next year, and the 600/4 the year after. Sony's lens design capabilities have improved dramatically since 2018 and I would expect the newer lenses to be superior optically while also being even lighter and more compact than the already excellent lenses they will replace.

That brings us to Canon. I can understand the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 flange adapter decisions. Kind of. It's still disappointing to see Canon do this considering that even Nikon designed native Z mount super teles, and a LOT of them. The 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are, to be blunt, embarassments. I hope Canon bring out native RF versions of all of these lenses, and not using 2x TCs for the 800/5.6 and 1200/8. A native RF 1200/8 would be amazing, and the sort of lens I would expect from a company like Canon.

 

[mimbu]

Most overpowered binoculars ever!

I love my Canon 18x50 IS binocs! Just amazing. Got them used in like new condition for a price so low that it sounds like a lie. $270 at current exchange rates.

 

[mimbu]

Yep. Mainly, I was looking for an excuse for some photoshop fun...

I definitely got a chuckle out of your mockups.

 

[GMAX]

Back to the roots...
Any first experiences with the new firmware?
Downloaded mine for the 100-300 today. Upgrade worked flawlessly. But had no time for testing so far.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Damn, I read: "Canon releases 5 telephoto RF lenses" and I got really, really excited! I clicked on the article and baaaam, reality struck, I released my mistake

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nikon has definitely done the most for wildlife photographers on mirrorless, especially anyone who wants primes but doesn't have an unlimited budget. The 600/6.3 and 800/6.3 are absolutely incredible lenses, and the prices, while not cheap, are at least attainable.

I’d argue that Canon has done a great job with the RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11, along with the newer 200-800. Canon and Nikon both have very expensive options, Nikon has ‘midrange’ (to the extent that several thousand dollars is that), Canon has relatively inexpensive options. Seems like Canon has done a lot for more people wanting to try wildlife photography.

 

[rangerider]

Sony made a development announcement for an 800/5.6GM that will be coming later this year, and the 300/2.8GM is a stunning lens.

I must have missed this one, where did you see it? Only thing I’ve seen were rumors of an 800mm release last year sometime that never came to fruition.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I must have missed this one, where did you see it? Only thing I’ve seen were rumors of an 800mm release last year sometime that never came to fruition.

I didn’t think Sony had anything beyond 600mm. Google disavows knowledge of such an announcement. Sometimes people confuse a rumor for something real. Or maybe put a Sony APS-C MILC behind their old 500/4 for something close to 800/5.6.

 

[mimbu]

I must have missed this one, where did you see it? Only thing I’ve seen were rumors of an 800mm release last year sometime that never came to fruition.

Odd, I was sure there was a development announcement but I can't find any record of it. Guess there was only a rumor. Corrected!

 

[mimbu]

Or maybe put a Sony APS-C MILC behind their old 500/4 for something close to 800/5.6.

Come on, that's something only Canon would do... (And don't shoot me for that, Canon did worse with the 800 and 1200 "RF" lenses.)

It does seem however that there wasn't a development announcement for a Sony 800, only an early rumor. Guess I got it mixed up in my head with the 300/2.8 development announcement.

 

[mimbu]

I’d argue that Canon has done a great job with the RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11, along with the newer 200-800. Canon and Nikon both have very expensive options, Nikon has ‘midrange’ (to the extent that several thousand dollars is that), Canon has relatively inexpensive options. Seems like Canon has done a lot for more people wanting to try wildlife photography.

I'm not impressed with the IQ of the 200-800, especially beyond 600mm. It does not compare well, IMO, with the Nikon and Sony offerings.

The f11 primes are a curiosity but they're f11. I realize people are buying them, and I did experience Nikkor 800/8 and 1200/11 lenses years ago, but f11. Even on mirrorless this really pushes the limit.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm not impressed with the IQ of the 200-800, especially beyond 600mm. It does not compare well, IMO, with the Nikon and Sony offerings.

I have only used the 200-800 briefly, the IQ was decent but not great beyond 600mm, I didn’t like the long zoom ring throw.

The f11 primes are a curiosity but they're f11. I realize people are buying them, and I did experience Nikkor 800/8 and 1200/11 lenses years ago, but f11. Even on mirrorless this really pushes the limit.

I often shoot my 840/5.6 (600/4 II + 1.4x) at f/11 for sufficient DoF. Current sensors with DxO NR allows use of ISOs higher than I ever used on a DSLR.

 

[SnowMiku]

I'm not impressed with the IQ of the 200-800, especially beyond 600mm. It does not compare well, IMO, with the Nikon and Sony offerings.

The f11 primes are a curiosity but they're f11. I realize people are buying them, and I did experience Nikkor 800/8 and 1200/11 lenses years ago, but f11. Even on mirrorless this really pushes the limit.

I've been curious to see if the IQ of the RF 800mm f/11 and RF 200-800 F/6.3-9 would be better suited for an R8/R6 vs an R7? Does anyone have experience with both?

 

[AlanF]

I'm not impressed with the IQ of the 200-800, especially beyond 600mm. It does not compare well, IMO, with the Nikon and Sony offerings.

The f11 primes are a curiosity but they're f11. I realize people are buying them, and I did experience Nikkor 800/8 and 1200/11 lenses years ago, but f11. Even on mirrorless this really pushes the limit.

My RF 200-800mm at 500mm is as sharp as my RF 100-500mm At 500mm and may be even a tad sharper. This sharpness is retained at 600mm and so the lens must be as sharp as the Sony and Nikon lenses at their maximum of 600mm. I look upon the 200-800mm as a very sharp 200-600mm with a built in TC that has minimal effects on maximum aperture.

 

[AlanF]

I've been curious to see if the IQ of the RF 800mm f/11 and RF 200-800 F/6.3-9 would be better suited for an R8/R6 vs an R7? Does anyone have experience with both?

They are relatively better on the R5 than R7, where I have much experience.

 

[mimbu]

My RF 200-800mm at 500mm is as sharp as my RF 100-500mm At 500mm and may be even a tad sharper. This sharpness is retained at 600mm and so the lens must be as sharp as the Sony and Nikon lenses at their maximum of 600mm. I look upon the 200-800mm as a very sharp 200-600mm with a built in TC that has minimal effects on maximum aperture.

The difference is that the Canon lens is f8 from ~450mm, and drops to f9 just after 600mm. It's pretty much a full stop slower than the Nikon and Sony offerings, or even the Sigma versions. (Hopefully Sigma will release a new version of their 150-600 that uses their new magnetic linear motors.)

I just don't understand Canon's approach to mirrorless at this point. It feels very "monkey's paw" a lot of the time. "We'll make a 200-800 that we know a LOT of people will really want. But (monkey's paw...) we'll handicap it by making it much slower than the competition, make sure the IQ is not great beyond 600mm, and we'll not make it any lighter than the competition's faster glass. We'll also make it an extending zoom because we already know (70-200...) that a lot of people really don't like that."

 

[mimbu]

They are relatively better on the R5 than R7, where I have much experience.

Wouldn't want the budget camera and the budget primes to work well together, that would just make too much sense. (So frustrating.)

 

[mimbu]

I often shoot my 840/5.6 (600/4 II + 1.4x) at f/11 for sufficient DoF. Current sensors with DxO NR allows use of ISOs higher than I ever used on a DSLR.

You're still getting the AF performance of an f5.6 lens and not an f11 lens. You also have the option to shoot at f5.6 if you wish, or f8. You don't have to shoot at f11.

Of course if f11 is fine for you, you could just sell your 600/4 and buy the 600/8 and 800/11 lenses, save yourself a lot of money and a lot of weight.