Canon announces $17K 800mm F5.6, $20K 1200mm F8 lenses for RF mount
3140 g (6.92 lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm
3340g (7.36lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm
My guess was right! It's $17,000 or more! lol
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Canon RF 1200mm Details Leak: Weighs only 0.25kg more than the RF 600mm f/4L IS USM
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
3140 g (6.92 lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm
3340g (7.36lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm
My guess was right! It's $17,000 or more! lol
Correct me if I'm wrong. In the write-up on DP Review, there is this sentence about the 1200 f/8 lens: "It too supports Canon’s RF 1.4x and RF 2x extenders, which turn it into a 1680mm F16 and 2400mm F32 lens, respectively." Shouldn't that be 1680 f/11 and 2400 f/16??Canon announces $17K 800mm F5.6, $20K 1200mm F8 lenses for RF mount
3140 g (6.92 lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm
3340g (7.36lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm
My guess was right! It's $17,000 or more! lol
Upvote
0
Many thanks Alan. I had forgotten your extensive tests on almost every combination.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.
But at 1000mm at f/14 even with DLA at around f/7 is better than a combo at f/8. I guess 1000mm vs 800mm have something to do with it.
By the way I have two or three photos that show extreme sharpness and verify your findings (They just frustrate me because I was looking for a different grebe that day and it took me 2 or 3 minutes to focus and that is the reason for firmware downgrade.
I will make more tests with my DO lens. I do not want to let go of it. It can be 400 f/4 560 f/5.6 and 800 f/8 with reasonable size (although a little on the heavy side).
Upvote
0
By the way that EF500mm f/4L IS II with TCs and EOS-R adapter seems to me "poor man's" RF600, RF 800, whatever. Of course I am joking but I mean that by having it I don't have to get a double expensive RF telephoto big white. Not the same but close enough. Unless they make an RF500 f/4L IS at 2.1 Kg
EDIT: And shorter than the current one
EDIT: And shorter than the current one
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Its been nearly a decade since I thought about it but I think 1.4x should means 1-stop of light loss and 2.0x would be 2-stop of light lost.
For a full proper setup from scratch for the 1200mm one would need to set aside at least $35,000
Upvote
0
My main camera shop guy asked if I was interested in either of them since I had already brought the 400 2,8 Nikon and put down a deposit for the Nikon 800mm. I placed an order with him for both since they will moistly be used on my RED Raptor for surfing footage. Expensive year already but I swallow a lot of this through my accountant so no biggie really. Not expecting much change from 35k euro and that's with my generous discount... I should say thats 35 grand deposit for just the 1200mm so far.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes, I love using super teles along with say a 100 - 400 and some wide angles. I have various bodies and a couple are used solely on super teles, 1 Nikon, 1 Canon and depending on where I am in the world I can set them up and everything else is done remotely. I do some low light/dusk shooting but normally thats always with a 400 2.8 or lower focal length.
Upvote
0
I can only say, as a physicist, that the fundamental principles should be the same in such Canon and Nikon lenses. The design details surely differ, and one reason I guess is that Nikon had to work around earlier Canon patents.
Upvote
0
The problem in my opinion is that your right and left eye won't be able to peer at the same time through two cameras to catch sudden action, if you don't have a very special physiognomyYou 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.
- and shooting wildlife by looking on two displays only works well if you sit in a dark shelter during a bright day. To be serious, I personally prefer to work with only one gear and fully concentrate on that. I mostly shoot free-hand with my EF 500mm plus often a 1.4x TC III attached because I then can catch action like BIF better. For two long lenses with cameras attached I'd need four arms, two heads - and a much more stable spine. Picasso explained once his girlfriend and painter Francoise Gilot that he prefers to paint a picture with only one brush, to get not distracted by changing tools. I think that he was not only very gifted, but also a really wise artist. Simplicity is the best path to gain more freedom.
Upvote
0
Prediction: These 800 and 1200 lenses are inexplicably and absurdly overpriced compared to the essentially identical 400 and 600 lenses for one reason:
Their prices are going up. I'll predict a $1000 increase within a year for each of those. (Which is about 7%, which is about the last year's inflation rate).
Coming:
400: $12k->$13k
600: $13k->$14k
800: $17k
1200: $20k
Doesn't that feel more proportional and logical?
Their prices are going up. I'll predict a $1000 increase within a year for each of those. (Which is about 7%, which is about the last year's inflation rate).
Coming:
400: $12k->$13k
600: $13k->$14k
800: $17k
1200: $20k
Doesn't that feel more proportional and logical?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
