Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again

[DocInfoSci]

I agree with your position if you are simply showing a clinical evaluation of a lens, but there is also the option of showing what is possible with that same lens and that is where our approaches differ. This is particularly true with mirrors, since the central obstruction inherently reduces contrast pretty dramatically, so any kind of natural-looking image requires a contrast boost in post at the very least.

We are agreed all around then!

In this case I was curious as to whether the apparently really good ones, within the limits of a modern-ish Canon camera and its tricks only, gave a better foundation than what the cheap Samyang crowd was providing. If marginal, then I'd stay thrilled with my stupidly low prices and enjoy the toys for what they are. If substantially better then I might look at various markets.

I find in perfect conditions both the Opteka (Samyang) 500 and 900 can produce solid work with post-processing. The big trick was coming to terms with the ideal temperatures, and once I figured that part out the keepers became very consistent when situationally permitted. Regardless, the starting point is low contrast and softness. That bird photo, for example, should have a DoF of ~ .42 meters at 15 meters distant, and since the bird is less than 4 centimeters thick then unless my focus is crazy off (it wasn't, there was peaking) that's pretty much well what I get for the 500. Can I make that picture better? Yes! But that's my copy of the lens on a bright day in a slight breeze and hand-held by me. A person can look at that photo and go, ah — with an R6 and a 500mm Samyang that's a realistic expectation regardless of post skills.

But the act is inconvenient and the ideal situations are rare enough that I have far more useful lenses from Canon and other brands to cover the same range for "real" work. Still, I'm an engineering nerd and enjoy the side exercise all the same.

So yeah, enhanced or not I do enjoy seeing photos such as yours. But I find the in-camera edit restrictions more informative.

(Also, the 500 is a good astro lens for tracking stuff like the Andromeda galaxy when picture stacking is used.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's not opinion, it's fact. It's a garbage tier camera.

You cannot tell the difference between opinion and fact, nor apparently between your fantasy world and reality. Sad.

Your opinion doesn't change the facts that I stated.

The only facts I've seen you post here are the lens prices listed on B&H. What you think are facts (e.g., R100 is garbage, Sony sells the most MILCs) are not.

 

[mimbu]

You cannot tell the difference between opinion and fact, nor apparently between your fantasy world and reality. Sad.


The only facts I've seen you post here are the lens prices listed on B&H. What you think are facts (e.g., R100 is garbage, Sony sells the most MILCs) are not.

It's cute (but more than a little sad) how you want to blindly defend Canon about this. It's a garbage tier camera. Why deny it?

 

[DocInfoSci]

My family has a broad economic range of situational earning power. For me? Yeah, the R100 isn't something I even linger by when passing it on a shelf, but for some of my siblings or their kids? That R100 can get them into the field.

And, at the end of the day, getting into the field and f'ing about is what builds smiles and skills.

And, people with smiles buy better cameras when the cash comes around.

So I think junk is a little disingenuous. It's a gateway drug. Think of it as, "hey kid, your first camera is low price... and here's a cheap pancake to go with it. Remember us."

You're a tech guy, right? Then you should know that the early purchases into hardware of any stack tends to set the direction of future purchases due to accumulating expenditure and "the devil you know". It's a smart, smart move by Canon (and all other camera vendors who do the same).

 

[mimbu]

Finally. Thanks...for this, at least.

Canon harms their users by not allowing 3rd party glass onto RF.

2026 will be the year of zoom lenses from China. How good the early ones will be is anyone's guess but the Chinese will iterate extremely quickly and the prices will be very low.

It took Viltrox a couple of rounds of primes to get that "right". Now they have things like the FF AF 14/4 Air which I paid $150 for and while not a fast aperture lens, the image quality is shockingly good. Their APS-C AF 9/2.8 Air is also excellent. The new EVO series is amazing and very affordable, 35/1.8 and 55/1.8 APO EVO lenses coming next month for under $300 each. They join the 85/2 EVO which is currently $220 on B&H and is sharp wide open with beautiful rendering. The value proposition is incredible. Get them on sale and you'll get all three of these EVO primes for the same price as the Canon RF 85/2.

That's the power of 3rd party glass. What we see with primes now we will see with zooms soon, maybe as soon as next year.

It won't be long before we see the first Chinese camera. Probably L mount. That will shake things up even more.

 

[mimbu]

My family has a broad economic range of situational earning power. For me? Yeah, the R100 isn't something I even linger by when passing it on a shelf, but for some of my siblings or their kids? That R100 can get them into the field.

And, at the end of the day, getting into the field and f'ing about is what builds smiles and skills.

And, people with smiles buy better cameras when the cash comes around.

So I think junk is a little disingenuous. It's a gateway drug. Think of it as, "hey kid, your first camera is low price... and here's a cheap pancake to go with it. Remember us."

You're a tech guy, right? Then you should know that the early purchases into hardware of any stack tends to set the direction of future purchases due to accumulating expenditure and "the devil you know". It's a smart, smart move by Canon (and all other camera vendors who do the same).

I don't deny the effectiveness of the way Canon is doing this, though I'm not entirely sure it will lead to a lot of FF purchases in the future since the lenses generally don't transfer. People can pick their FF system when they move, if they wish.

Canon is the best at building these very underspec'd very low-tier (yes, IMO junk) cameras and shoveling them out the door in large quantities. We saw it in the EOS days, and the result today is a huge number of junk bottom end EOS bodies in thrift shops that no one will ever want to use again. Most of them are likely broken anyway. It was this way in the film era, then the DSLR era as that progressed, and now in the RF era.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's cute (but more than a little sad) how you want to blindly defend Canon about this. It's a garbage tier camera. Why deny it?

It's an entry-level camera. Characterizing it as garbage is just you being arrogant. Grow up.

 

[DocInfoSci]

I don't deny the effectiveness of the way Canon is doing this, though I'm not entirely sure it will lead to a lot of FF purchases in the future since the lenses generally don't transfer. People can pick their FF system when they move, if they wish.

Canon is the best at building these very underspec'd very low-tier (yes, IMO junk) cameras and shoveling them out the door in large quantities. We saw it in the EOS days, and the result today is a huge number of junk bottom end EOS bodies in thrift shops that no one will ever want to use again. Most of them are likely broken anyway. It was this way in the film era, then the DSLR era as that progressed, and now in the RF era.

Of course they’ll end up on used shelves, unloved for the most part. Most entry products do, nostalgic collection aside. They’re throw-away hooks.

My family’s first entry level digital camera, the original Rebel, lead to seven additional camera purchases (and counting — R3 II, where are you?). Forward compatibility of lenses and mounts became a concern early on and reinforced these choices. Glad it was Canon we bought into. There will be the same stories for Sony and Nikon. I mean, for Sony it will be lamented like a lost generation — but the same nonetheless.

Where there is one there’s a 1,000 as the marketing statement goes. So many people have ended up this way. Do some jump ship? Most certainly. Companies like Canon, Nikon, Apple, etc. all play the long game and know some of the losses are just bad timing in a much grander plan. If the premise was good to start with those people will be back.

Look, there’s nothing wrong with wanting more. But I think some perspective is warranted. And adaptability to ground truth.

I love mechanical AF override, for example, but honestly what I really want is manual AF override in servo mode by twisting rings and not flipping menus or switches. I accept that’s a happy compromise for all of the other benefits gained. Do I want third party full frame AF RF lens options as well? Sure. I drool over Sigma’s 600 prime at its price point, but the overall benefits of this ecosystem as a whole outweigh one desirable lens. The grass is always greener on the other side until you hop over and start pulling weeds. but that’s the game. (And, tbh, the Tamron and Tokina lenses I did have couldn’t put up with use or compatibility over time. So experience tells me Canon taking its time with third parties on the FF side makes good sense for everyone.)

Perhaps more useful is what you think a reasonable entry camera and price will be. Maybe someone here with a Canon connection will use it as a seed for thought. But keep in mind the need for low cost, economies of scale, and incentives to upgrade to the next tier. And what competition is charging for similar. The R100 might not be quite so crazy after all. I mean, if my kid grabs an R100 and an adapter she also gets access to every lens in my signature — vs an iPhone, say. This is the kind of tractor use case these companies have in mind.

 

[AJ]

The two L-series Z zooms get power zoom functionality with an attachment.

Yes, and this is another good example that Canon's RF lenses aren't purely video-centric. Those two are stills-oriented lenses, and videographers have to buy an extra attachment.

I'm not a videographer and I've never had a change to play with these lenses and said attachment, but at face value it looks a bit like a kluge. It reminds me of the Nikkor lenses where the focus motor was in the camera body and there was this screwdriver-like coupling mechanism. Awkward and clunky.

 

[AJ]

Here is the way I look at things. There are a lot of awesome cameras on the market. Canon makes awesome cameras. Sony makes awesome cameras. Looking for minor differences to see which is the awesomest is pretty pointless. Ford versus Chevrolet, LG versus Samsung, Colgate versus Crest, Huggies versus Pampers - which is better? Who cares, they all do the job, and they do it well.

Even the R100 is an awesome camera. As Neuro points out, it's an entry-level camera, with lower specs than the high-end models. In the vast majority of cases, the image quality it produces is good enough for the purpose. to say it is garbage is just snobbery.

 

[AJ]

Canon harms their users by not allowing 3rd party glass onto RF.

This is perhaps one bit I can empathize with. I'm not sure if harms is the right verb though. But IMO Canon does hold their users back.

Which brings me back to the 300-600. Sigma has a 300-600/4 that sells for 6600 USD and was released a year ago. I wonder if this release scuttled a Canon announcement, and why it has taken so long for Canon to release the 300-600 which they purportedly have been working on. Maybe they had a 300-600/5.6 ready for a similar price? Releasing a lens at a that's a full stop slower and shutting out Sigma by not licensing their mount to them would be bad optics (pun intended). Pure speculation on my behalf, of course.
(edit spelling)

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Get the RF 70-200/2.8 Z and put the RF 1.4x TC behind it. You’ll have a 98-280mm f/4 with excellent IQ, and you can get it right now, no waiting and hoping required.

Yes, Canon finally have given us a direct replacement and significant upgrade to the older EF mkII and mkIII versions. The RF70-200/2.8 is a great lens, but the ability to use teleconverters and that it's So sharp just adds so much to its versatility.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Canon harms their users by not allowing 3rd party glass onto RF.

2026 will be the year of zoom lenses from China. How good the early ones will be is anyone's guess but the Chinese will iterate extremely quickly and the prices will be very low.

It took Viltrox a couple of rounds of primes to get that "right". Now they have things like the FF AF 14/4 Air which I paid $150 for and while not a fast aperture lens, the image quality is shockingly good. Their APS-C AF 9/2.8 Air is also excellent. The new EVO series is amazing and very affordable, 35/1.8 and 55/1.8 APO EVO lenses coming next month for under $300 each. They join the 85/2 EVO which is currently $220 on B&H and is sharp wide open with beautiful rendering. The value proposition is incredible. Get them on sale and you'll get all three of these EVO primes for the same price as the Canon RF 85/2.

That's the power of 3rd party glass. What we see with primes now we will see with zooms soon, maybe as soon as next year.

It won't be long before we see the first Chinese camera. Probably L mount. That will shake things up even more.

I can't think of a single lens that Canon hasn't offered a better version, superior specs or similar offerings than 3rd party. When i look at 3rd party lenses, there's always a downside fro the cheaper price. Poor AF or a lack of critical sharpness at the long end of a zoom range. For me, even Canon's older EF mkII and mkIII glass is far superior to most of the current 3rd party offerings. For me, my upgrade path is with Canon, not 3rd party.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And, people with smiles buy better cameras when the cash comes around.

Even people with cash don't necessarily jump in at the high end. When the point-n-shoot I was using at the time (an Olympus C765UZ) started failing to keep up with my toddler, in early 2009, I decided to buy my first DSLR. Photography had been a hobby before and during college, including developing and printing my film. But I did not know if it would become a hobby again, or if the gear I bought to start out would end up unloved on a used shelf somewhere, as you put it.

I set a total budget of $2500. The only real choices at the time were Canon and Nikon, and I ended up choosing Canon in no small part because of the excellent reviews of Canon gear on TDP (which then and for many years after was Canon-only). Recalling from SLR shooting the glass >> body axiom, to stay in budget I bought the entry-level Rebel at the time, the T1i/500D, and instead of the kit lens I bought the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and the EF 85/1.8, rounding out the kit with a 430EX II and a Manfrotto CF tripod with an ok Manfrotto ballhead.

Clearly, it turned out that I enjoyed photography enough to spend far more on it since then.

 

[David - Sydney]

Sigma is building the best lenses for my area of interest (astro), and Canon seems to prefer heavy digital corrections to make it's lenses more video-friendly (were I'm not interested in). So I'm thinking about my way ahead, with or without Canon.

I do agree with you to an extent for the specific astro use case. There are trade offs though.
RF14/1.4 and RF20/1.4 are gems for astro but expensive.
AF is not needed for astro plus the Sigma 14/1.4 has lockable focus and dew heater space which is great but at a much bigger/heavier option. Using a lens tripod mount is almost a must!
Sony 14/1.8 is light/small and reasonably priced but isn't f1.4. Their 20/1.8 is also not f1.4
It would be possible to get the f1.8 pair and a A7iii new for about the same cost as a RF14 + RF20. So a 2nd system may make sense for some especially if the camera has a Ha mod.

My Samyang 14/2.4 and Sigma EF20/1.4 have limitations but have not stopped me from getting panoramas that I am very happy with.
Given ~10 new moons a year and poor weather reduces the GAS for me. I do have a workshop coming up in June at Uluru so the RF20/1.4 has started its siren call.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, Canon finally have given us a direct replacement and significant upgrade to the older EF mkII and mkIII versions. The RF70-200/2.8 is a great lens, but the ability to use teleconverters and that it's So sharp just adds so much to its versatility.

Personally, I prefer the smaller size of the non-Z 70-200/2.8. I'd probably be more tempted by the Z version if I used my current one more often, but I really use it only occasionally and instead mainly use the 100-300/2.8 in those use cases.

 

[David - Sydney]

Yes, and for astro (which is what the Sigma is specifically designed for) the Sigma is by far the superior lens, while being 30% less expensive. If you want a lens for video on a gimbal, the Canon is the right lens and the Sigma would be ridiculous if not impossible.

Given the rise of the Chinese lens manufacturers and the niche use cases they are targeting (Laowe probes and tilt/shift!), it is increasingly likely that a dedicated manual AF 14mm lens for astro is coming. It should be relatively cheap but probably not small or light.
Designing and making UWA lenses that can control aberrations is hard. We will see.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

People complain the 100-300mm + 2X is not sharp at f/5.6. If the new lens was razor sharp all the way to 600mm wide open, that might please all the birders out there. What is your opinion of the 100-300mm - 2x at f/5.6? I have noticed that it is indeed sharper with 1.4x when fully open, but you usually have to pixel-peep to notice. However, this minor sharpness issue plus the possibility to go even further with extenders is very tempting to me.

I don't where you get this idea from, maybe you can't comprehend a sharp lens that can be sharp wide open with a 2x tc. I have a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS and it's pin sharp (it still out resolves my R5's sensor) with a 2x tele converter. There are lenses that are so sharp that they are still considered super sharp with a 2x TC. The RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS is as sharp as the older EF prime, the same thing with a 2x TC on either lenses. The 100-300mm f2.8 LIS with a 2x TC is (according to the MFT charts) is sharper than the RF 200-800mm. The RF 400mm f2.8 LIS with a 2x TC is slightly sharper and the RF 100-500L is a tiny bit sharper too. But I'm sure you will hardly see any difference in real world photos.
If you are shooting with a 24mp, any lens over .65 on a Canon MFT chart will render as sharp. With a R5/R5II, anything over .8 will render sa sharp. With a R7, the lens needs to resolve over .9.

I appreciate that these are theoretical figures, but it's a datum and those are the figulres we have been given.
However, with a 2x teleconverter, the AF may struggle a bit and mye be slow, hesitant and less accurrate and the lens would be natively. Also the oncreased focal length is more likely to suffer from heat haze, shutter shock or hand wobble / poor technique / poor lens craft issues.

What will be obvious from using a 2x tc vs a native lens is the drop in contrast.

 

[David - Sydney]

I want the Canon of 20 or 30 years ago to return.

When DLSR competition was only with Nikon (no Sony) and no phone cameras?
Poor AF with single or center-grouped AF points let alone eye controlled AF and slow fps with no pre-capture.
Nikon's D1 in 2001 as the first professional digital sensor camera.
Canon's breakthrough 300D was the first consumer level digital sensor camera was 23 years ago and 6.3mp
The first real video hybrid 5Dii was 18 years ago.
No internet let alone denoise SW or object removal in post.

Tell me again how the Canon of 20-30 years ago would have been wonderful?

I have an issue with those who hark back with fond memories of a past era when they focus on just one aspect and not the total picture at the time.
Whether culture, immigration or camera systems, they all fall down within minutes of a serious analysis but people rely on feelings rather than facts.

 

[David - Sydney]

Canon harms their users by not allowing 3rd party glass onto RF.

There is no 'harm' involved - only choices.
There are telephone numbers you can call for support if you feel that you are harmed.
But hey, you are generating clicks so good for you!