Canon RF 1200mm Details Leak: Weighs only 0.25kg more than the RF 600mm f/4L IS USM

[justaCanonuser]

Nikon seems to have gone down that route of announcing development of 800mm f6.3 PF for their Z mount while Canon is sticking to a more conventional glass.

Maybe no good news for Nikon users, since diffraction optics lenses need a particularly precise production, and Nikon struggled even with their 300mm f/4 lens to deliver quality, as Roger Cicala from lensrentals found out:

The Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Test: Or Why I Don’t Test Just One Copy

As most of you know, we generally test multiple copies of a lens when we evaluate it, simply because we are so aware of copy-to-copy variation. But I got caught between a rock and a hard place this week. We received exactly one copy of the new Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens and [...]

www.lensrentals.com

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Maybe no good news for Nikon users, since diffraction optics lenses need a particularly precise production, and Nikon struggled even with their 300mm f/4 lens to deliver quality, as Roger Cicala from lensrentals found out:

The Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Test: Or Why I Don’t Test Just One Copy

As most of you know, we generally test multiple copies of a lens when we evaluate it, simply because we are so aware of copy-to-copy variation. But I got caught between a rock and a hard place this week. We received exactly one copy of the new Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens and [...]

www.lensrentals.com

The 500 PF is near perfect. The 800 PF is a further generation ahead. Canon's 400 DO f/4.0 L was crap and the mark 2 is considered fantastic.

 

[Bob Howland]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the possibility that these lenses are intended not only for still photographers but also and more importantly for wildlife videographers. I recall a PBS program (Nature or Nova) about wolf packs in the arctic. The cameraman had what looked like a Canon 800 f/5.6 in front of something by Arri. He could have used three times the reach.

 

[efmshark]

Continue reading...

It weighs only 0.25Kg more and costs only $25K more...

 

[arbitrage]

Looking at the RF 600 diagram it has the same two fluorite and single Super UD as this 1200 spec list says. I believe the single UD is the very front element. I'd assume that the 1200 will look identical from the two vertical hash lines forward and then the rear smaller elements will be different. (Purple is Fluorite, Green is Super UD.

I still don't think this is just a RF 600 with 2xTC elements tacked on but it is certainly along those lines...but won't be a complete clone. Considering the MFD is still 4.5m means this isn't a typical 1200mm design like the 1200L was and this won't be nearly as long...that thing had a 14m MFD

RF 600:

 

[Deleted member 387325]

A little disappointed with the recycling and stopgaps from Canon, to be honest. Nikon seems to have the better technology with their PF lenses and a more practical approach at the moment for wildlife shooters. More versatility with their built-in TCs and those PFs are fantastic glass for the size. Hardly different from their super tele primes.

 

[dolina]

A little disappointed with the recycling and stopgaps from Canon, to be honest. Nikon seems to have the better technology with their PF lenses and a more practical approach at the moment for wildlife shooters. More versatility with their built-in TCs and those PFs are fantastic glass for the size. Hardly different from their super tele primes.

I am not updated with Nikkor lenses which led me to this NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S that uses PF (Phase Fresnel) lens tech.

What I could not find is the physical dimensions & weight of it. Front element would be 2mm larger than the 500/4.0's 125mm.

If I were to hazard a guess this Nikkor would be nearly 2kg or 4.4lbs in weight and nearly as tall as 400mm or 500mm lens.

Would the price point be north of $13,000? Odds are, yes.

 

[[email protected]]

Looking at the RF 600 diagram it has the same two fluorite and single Super UD as this 1200 spec list says. I believe the single UD is the very front element. I'd assume that the 1200 will look identical from the two vertical hash lines forward and then the rear smaller elements will be different. (Purple is Fluorite, Green is Super UD.

I still don't think this is just a RF 600 with 2xTC elements tacked on but it is certainly along those lines...but won't be a complete clone. Considering the MFD is still 4.5m means this isn't a typical 1200mm design like the 1200L was and this won't be nearly as long...that thing had a 14m MFD

RF 600:

View attachment 202586

I'm coming around to the idea that you might be right, and that, while technically a different design, it could well be that everything to the left is really the 600mm f/4, with some clever bits on the right added in with the effect of a teleconverter. It's certainly a possibility at least. I've made this all appropriately more uncertain in the OP.

 

[justaCanonuser]

The 500 PF is near perfect. The 800 PF is a further generation ahead. Canon's 400 DO f/4.0 L was crap and the mark 2 is considered fantastic.

Canon's first DO lens was a first, a poineering move, and it wasn't crap, that's too hard. It just did not yet meet the performance of a conventional lens (see Brian Carnathan's review of the first one back then). After Canon came up with the much better MK II version, Nikon could analyze a copy and learn

 

[justaCanonuser]

I am not updated with Nikkor lenses which led me to this NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S that uses PF (Phase Fresnel) lens tech.

What I could not find is the physical dimensions & weight of it. Front element would be 2mm larger than the 500/4.0's 125mm.

If I were to hazard a guess this Nikkor would be nearly 2kg or 4.4lbs in weight and nearly as tall as 400mm or 500mm lens.

Would the price point be north of $13,000? Odds are, yes.

I sometimes met a guy in Germany who carried that one and a 600mm lens with him and mounted both with two cameras on a huge tripod. But that was a place which one can reach with a trolley, one doesn't need a backpack. For my personal taste it was a bit too much gear to handle when it gets to action but he was happy. The 800 looked surprisingly compact, compared with Nikon's 600mm f/4 he had.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Canon's first DO lens was a first, a poineering move, and it wasn't crap, that's too hard. It just did not yet meet the performance of a conventional lens (see Brian Carnathan's review of the first one back then). After Canon came up with the much better MK II version, Nikon could analyze a copy and learn

mark 2 is considered fantastic. No one is questioning it.

 

[dolina]

I sometimes met a guy in Germany who carried that one and a 600mm lens with him and mounted both with two cameras on a huge tripod. But that was a place which one can reach with a trolley, one doesn't need a backpack. For my personal taste it was a bit too much gear to handle when it gets to action but he was happy. The 800 looked surprisingly compact, compared with Nikon's 600mm f/4 he had.

You must have been with a fella with a 800/5.6 VR and 600/4.0 VR then.

I know of a handful who completed their sets of fast long primes that would bring half their fleet with them to maximize their photo keeper rate.

 

[John Wilde]

Nokishita is dead? How that?

They deleted their Twitter account.

 

[arbitrage]

I sometimes met a guy in Germany who carried that one and a 600mm lens with him and mounted both with two cameras on a huge tripod. But that was a place which one can reach with a trolley, one doesn't need a backpack. For my personal taste it was a bit too much gear to handle when it gets to action but he was happy. The 800 looked surprisingly compact, compared with Nikon's 600mm f/4 he had.

Those two lenses are very similar in size. The 600 has slightly more girth but not much. The Nikon 800 is longer than the Nikon 600. The only thing that makes the older Nikon 600VR look massive is if he had on the dual lens hoods. The 800 and the newer Nikon 600 have a lens hood like Canon.

 

[tron]

OK, but I'm a Canonite and presently do most of my shots at 800, although F8, as is. I'd be more interested in the 800 if it's light but can't afford it anyway. That's why I dream.

Jack

Jack are you satisfied with your combo IQ fully open? Have you tested it at f/11 too and if so are the improvements obvious?
I made some comparisons at TDP and at f/11 it seems better (but then it is a very version of RF800 f/11 !!!)

I feel a little silly asking you because I have the combo and some shots seemed nice and some not. But I have not tested it at f/11 and I do not know when I will.

Again I feel silly asking you. Maybe I will take some shots from my balcony and compare them. The only combo (with TCs) which I like a lot (and use when I only shoot through a car) is 500mm f/4L IS II/EF2XIII EOS-R adaptor and R5. But I was sure it was a decent combo because I used to use it with 5DsR (OK without the adaptor obviously )

 

[AlanF]

Canon's first DO lens was a first, a poineering move, and it wasn't crap, that's too hard. It just did not yet meet the performance of a conventional lens (see Brian Carnathan's review of the first one back then). After Canon came up with the much better MK II version, Nikon could analyze a copy and learn

Canon's DO II technology differed from the first by having a double-gapless Fresnel zone plate instead of a single. I have searched for whether Nikon used the newer Canon technology in their PF lenses and have found no evidence for it. So, if anyone could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

 

[AlanF]

Jack are you satisfied with your combo IQ fully open? Have you tested it at f/11 too and if so are the improvements obvious?
I made some comparisons at TDP and at f/11 it seems better (but then it is a very version of RF800 f/11 !!!)

I feel a little silly asking you because I have the combo and some shots seemed nice and some not. But I have not tested it at f/11 and I do not know when I will.

Again I feel silly asking you. Maybe I will take some shots from my balcony and compare them. The only combo (with TCs) which I like a lot (and use when I only shoot through a car) is 500mm f/4L IS II/EF2XIII EOS-R adaptor and R5. But I was sure it was a decent combo because I used to use it with 5DsR (OK without the adaptor obviously )

I found in the final testing of my second copy of the 400mm DO II that at f/8 with the 2xTC III it was very similar to the RF 800mm f/11 and did improve slightly on stopping down to f/11. My first copy of the lens with the 2xTCIII was also similar, but I don't recall it improving when stopping down. Anyway, my copy of the RF 100-500mm + RF 2x beats both.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Jack are you satisfied with your combo IQ fully open? Have you tested it at f/11 too and if so are the improvements obvious?
I made some comparisons at TDP and at f/11 it seems better (but then it is a very version of RF800 f/11 !!!)

I feel a little silly asking you because I have the combo and some shots seemed nice and some not. But I have not tested it at f/11 and I do not know when I will.

Again I feel silly asking you. Maybe I will take some shots from my balcony and compare them. The only combo (with TCs) which I like a lot (and use when I only shoot through a car) is 500mm f/4L IS II/EF2XIII EOS-R adaptor and R5. But I was sure it was a decent combo because I used to use it with 5DsR (OK without the adaptor obviously )

Tron, I'm sorry but it seems I always need to be wide open trying to get my shutter speed up since movement tends to happen with critters. Ignorance is bliss so I just motor along with 400 X2 and I still get my share of compliments.

I know it's hard to accept exaggerative praise when we know better.

Jack

 

[mbike999]

I am not updated with Nikkor lenses which led me to this NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S that uses PF (Phase Fresnel) lens tech.

What I could not find is the physical dimensions & weight of it. Front element would be 2mm larger than the 500/4.0's 125mm.

If I were to hazard a guess this Nikkor would be nearly 2kg or 4.4lbs in weight and nearly as tall as 400mm or 500mm lens.

Would the price point be north of $13,000? Odds are, yes.

Nikon roadmap shows their 800 being slightly longer than their 400/2.8 TC, but thinner around the lens barrel. Canon 400 RF, which the new 800/5.6 appears to be based on, is about 14.45 inches, so this new lens is probably in the 17-18 inch ballpark.

The Nikon will probably be about 16 inches or so gauging from diagrams. Weight unknown of course. Price also a huge unknown but all signs point to the Canon being $13K+

 

[Sdentrem]

I currently shoot the EF 500 f4 II adapted on my R5, mostly for birds, and use the 1.4x teleconverter 90 pct of the time on it, so 700mm f5.6. I was waiting for a new 500mm f4 in RF guise, but this 800 might be worth considering if it’s sharp and light. It’s likely not much bigger than my 500, and lighter as it’s based on the new 400mm f2.8 which was version III, where the 500 is still at version II and heavier. Hmmmm…. I’ll have to await field testing and reports before deciding, but I could be interested.