First Leaked Images of the RF 800mm F5.6L IS USM and the RF 1200mm F8L IS USM

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
643
662
T H I S !!!
Damn Canon...

Also those ugly silver adapters... o_O

But lets wait for the heavy prices!
But they won't beat the expensive Nikon 800 with 1,2TC I think (It is/was about 17-18000€!)

BUT#3: Can you guys imagine.... Canon brings niche lenses now and not 300 2.8 & 500 4.0 RFs?! Thats a crazy move I think!
No, not crazy. Different lenses are made in different ways and in different facilities. The really big whites are pretty much hand built by a small group of experts. With EF fading, that group will be (maybe already is) looking for work. These lenses will keep them busy. Many of the lenses that forum dwellers are lusting for are higher volume and require rebuilding automated production lines which takes a bit longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
643
662
In some respects the 1200mm f8L is a step backwards given the cult status of the EF 1200mm f5.6L. When I ran Panavision Europe we had two EF 1200 f5.6L lenses adapted for PL mount (but able to still be mounted EF with adaptors)
Canon reportedly only made 22 one of which they still have. One was sold at auction in Germany last year for € 500K ($560K).
If genital envy is a priority, then this may be a step backward, but I suspect the image quality will be improved over the EF 1200 and one person will be able to carry the new one. Given the rather awesome IS performance of the RF 800 f/11, I suspect that will be another area where these new lenses excel. The EF 1200 was actually a reworked FD lens and had no IS at all, so completely useless without a brutally heavy tripod. The RF 800 f/11 OTOH delivers consistently sharp images when handheld at 1/60th of a second and it only weighs a little over a kilogram. Extrapolating that performance suggests that the new 800 and 1200 lenses will be actually very usable and useful. With long lenses, IS is a big deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

juststeve

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 29, 2018
83
117
Given the current world political climate, there may be a larger market for these super superteles than photographers dwelling on web forums. Many a nation's militaries may well be standing in line for these lenses and hi Rez bodies for keeping track of their less than friendly neighbors. Were not South Korea and probably the US Army not the largest owners of Canon's 200/1.8 L?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

timmy

I'm New Here
Apr 23, 2021
10
15
As exciting as the 1,200mm is and the incredible reach it will offer, the f8 is a deal breaker for me. The difference between f8 and f4/f5.6 max is just not a trade off I am willing to do. Exciting to see this technology though
 

[email protected]

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
844
824
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
Really? Will this be the BS we will read here in the future?

There is no reason to turn this site into a toxic platform either.

Apologies for the wrong tone coming across. The "whomp whomp" really leant itself to seeming like it was useless fanboy teasing. My bad. Instead, it was (also useless) speculation about the shaping of the market.

I do find it fascinating that - as the original post suggested, we might presume that the new 800mm and the new 1200mm lenses are functionally better than their teleconverted equivalents - Canon is opening up a new set of use cases that aren't easy for the competition to follow quickly.

Or, as Arbitrage notes, it could be about as likely be the case that these aren't functionally better than a 600 with one other of the TCs attached, and we'll all still be waiting for the "real" RF super teles for a few years more. I have a sense that these might be more useful, but I've been wrong about that sort of thing with some frequency.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,274
930
Two hugely expensive lens. I can't see Canon making much money from them. They must be a prestige loss leader.
It will be interesting if there is much of difference image quality wise versus a 600mm 1.4 Ext / 2 Ext.
A 1200mm is a most inflexible lens. It's very hard to find or follow anything at 1200mm a built in extender would be far more useful from that perspective.
I won't have to worry about them. Good luck to anyone who gets one.
Provided that these are indeed variations of existing lens designs then the develop cost won't be very high and these are made with profit in mind rather than prestige, meaning they are going to make plenty of money on each one they will be selling and there will be specific use cases, where these will work better than others.
Once again the same story as with the f/11 DO telephotos. Everyone feels he has to complain on something he is not interested in. It's not like they are forcing them on anyone by not offering a 400 or a 600...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TM

EOS M50
Mar 20, 2013
33
1
What's the point of the 1200 f/8? You could just use the 600 f/4 with a 2X, and have a far more versatile setup. These lenses are silly, hard to believe Canon is wasting resources on these, when the RF mount is still missing a 24mm L, 35mm L, etc.
So we can have a 2400 f/16 with a 2X, for an equally versatile setup. :) I'd love an RF 35mm f1.2/ f1.4 though!
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,728
1,995
Given the current world political climate, there may be a larger market for these super superteles than photographers dwelling on web forums. Many a nation's militaries may well be standing in line for these lenses and hi Rez bodies for keeping track of their less than friendly neighbors. Were not South Korea and probably the US Army not the largest owners of Canon's 200/1.8 L?
Just like you, I can't see Canon producing "unusual" lenses, just hoping for a market. They already know who might buy these horribly expensive lenses. Armies, CIA, NASA, FBI etc... are already standing in line. There is also a technical reason for buying these lenses: safety distance.
Of course, also wildlife and sports professionals, or (very) rich amateurs. All those want or need extra long teles to bridge the flight or safety distance, for pictures of shy or dangerous animals or sports. And let's not forget the paparazzi, one shot can amortize the cost of the most expensive lens (Jackie O's photo, for instance).
Canon perfectly well know what they are doing!
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
3,008
1,215
UK
www.flickr.com
I assume you can put an empty extender like you'd use with a macro lens between two extenders. It would be manual focus. Might be a likely failure point though. If an RF adapter can explore multiple extenders in a row might be vulnerable. I'd hate to be trying to find a bird on a tree at 2400. I guess something for a real specialist.
You probably could but I wouldn't trust the strength of that, as you say it's a weak point - I once had an extension tube on my 500L and had propped it against a bench; it fell over and sheared in half, thankfully only the tube was destroyed. Also you lose infinity focus which may or may not be an issue.

I agree 2400 would be very challenging, though I went through a period of shooting at 1400mm (500+1.4x+2x) - handheld, manual focus. Though generally only for birds that weren't moving too much, like waterfowl or a kingfisher. Image quality was a bit ropey though.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,679
6,116
You probably could but I wouldn't trust the strength of that, as you say it's a weak point - I once had an extension tube on my 500L and had propped it against a bench; it fell over and sheared in half, thankfully only the tube was destroyed. Also you lose infinity focus which may or may not be an issue.

I agree 2400 would be very challenging, though I went through a period of shooting at 1400mm (500+1.4x+2x) - handheld, manual focus. Though generally only for birds that weren't moving too much, like waterfowl or a kingfisher. Image quality was a bit ropey though.
All the mounts of Canon lenses, extenders and extension tubes deliberately have a 'break away' plastic section in them to minimize damage. The thing "shearing in two" looks dramatic but it is designed to do that and be easily and cheaply replaced, it 'fails' deliberately to protect the more expensive parts of the lens and body.

I have only seen this with Canon tubes extenders and lenses, I have o experiences of third party equipment.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
3,008
1,215
UK
www.flickr.com
As exciting as the 1,200mm is and the incredible reach it will offer, the f8 is a deal breaker for me. The difference between f8 and f4/f5.6 max is just not a trade off I am willing to do. Exciting to see this technology though
LOL. Apart from the $100k+ EF 1200 and a couple of bespoke lenses made for Middle Eastern sheikhs, what other way of getting f/5.6 is possible at this focla length? You could mount a 2x extender on the semi-mythical Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 but that's a monster and only gets you to 1000mm. A deal breaker, honestly!
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
3,008
1,215
UK
www.flickr.com
All the mounts of Canon lenses, extenders and extension tubes deliberately have a 'break away' plastic section in them to minimize damage. The thing "shearing in two" looks dramatic but it is designed to do that and be easily and cheaply replaced, it 'fails' deliberately to protect the more expensive parts of the lens and body.

I have only seen this with Canon tubes extenders and lenses, I have o experiences of third party equipment.
Makes sense! I was relieved and chastened. It was a third party tube though, so whether by design or cheapness I don't know.
 

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,372
428
32
34109
www.facebook.com
Nikkon has a more creative approach to their new Z mount super tele primes

003-built-in-tc.jpg


NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S with a built-in extender! What a dream lens to have if you're into sports! Flick of a switch and you get a 560mm f/4 with 5.5 stop of IS!

If I was shooting sports professionally I'd ask my boss to buy this for me!
smiley.gif


I do wonder if it was possible to have a built-in TC that has an option for 1.4x or 2.0x?

It reduce lens SKUs from 3 to 1 and would surely help in increasing the production volume of Canon/Nikon/Sony's 400/2.8 by a factor of 3 if they did this. Many would be so inclined to buy one even when it approaches $20,000. Margins would also improve further making.

With a flick of a switch this theoretical super tele prime priced nearing $20,000 would become

- 400/2.8 without TC
- 560/4.0 with 1.4x TC
- 800/5.6 with 2.0x TC

I wouldn't mind it weighing about 6.6lbs (3kg).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,372
428
32
34109
www.facebook.com

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

7014496805.jpg


3340g (7.36lb) vs 4.5kg (9.9lbs) of the EF 800mm

8269696490.jpg


My guess was right! It's $17,000 or more! lol
 

SwissFrank

1N 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
787
431
I'm surprised to see these. They seem to be no more than the shorter lens and a teleconvertor in the same housing, yet at a several thousand dollar premium?

If I understand correctly, I'm really appalled.

My suggestion is to just use the EF 600/4IS Mk I: it's heavy but only $4000 or so, and very very nearly the optical quality of the MkII and MkIII and likely the RF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,289
6,867
I'm surprised to see these. They seem to be no more than the shorter lens and a teleconvertor in the same housing, yet at a several thousand dollar premium?

If I understand correctly, I'm really appalled.
The MTF's suggest performance is a little better than the shorter lens with the 2x TC, but the 'improvements' are minor enough that I suspect it simply means the internal TC optics are optimized specifically for those lenses' optical designs, rather than being generic for use with several lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
226
253
You had me up to that point.
I can't see why Canon shouldn't offer more expensive versions with built in teleconverters.
There is so much convenience to not have to take the lens off to add and remove teleconverters.
My point was that these were low-development-cost easy launches to fill the catalog without taxing the product development team and budget. Not that your desired lens shouldn't be developed, but that these were "gimmees" beyond the constrained choices for actual new lens designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
226
253
Pricing is bizarre. RF600 + 2x TC is $13600, instead of $20k for the same lens without the sbility to detach the TC. The reviews will be looking carefully at whether the 1200 has meaningful advnatages in performance, weight, and size for the eye-watering 50% price premium. (RF800 less so but still painful).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users