Yes but this newer model is a different beast entirely. No special order needed for a souped up 600 f4
Upvote
0
First Leaked Images of the RF 800mm F5.6L IS USM and the RF 1200mm F8L IS USM
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
The EF 400/2.8 II/III with 2x and 1.4x mounted is a brilliant 1120mm Lens in my view and especially a flexible one.
Of course only on "good light" days. But a 1200mm lens will have the same flickering problems as an almost 1200mm lens.
I´m curious which target group will buy such a special lens. Probably for 2x.xxx $.
Of course only on "good light" days. But a 1200mm lens will have the same flickering problems as an almost 1200mm lens.
I´m curious which target group will buy such a special lens. Probably for 2x.xxx $.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Superimposing the 800mm EF shows a possibly ever so slightly shorter length of the RF in comparison. There may be a slight angle difference, but assuming the front elements are the same size RF does look smaller. The more important metric would be the weight in my opinion. If there is substantial weight savings despite roughly the same length, then it would be a winner.
Upvote
0
Man the next 2 years is going to be expensive! Last year I spent 75k euro on my raptor kit, lenses, A1/Z9/R3. This year I’ve already preordered the 400mm 2.8 Z, then we have the 800mm Z and now I have to get the 800 and 1200 rf lenses, they will be so good with the raptor for my big wave surfing footage. On top of that I’m thinking we’ll have the R1 preorder this year. Ow we’ll need an excuse to buy a new VW van heh! Glad I ain’t married.
Upvote
0
If I had to guess, I would say the 800 is a new design, since the EF 800 was introduced in 2008 and is nose heavy compared to the current 400 and 600. The 1200 could be an adaptation of the current 600, but the very long back end suggests more than just the 600 with an extender, and it needs to be more than that, because the performance of the 600 with a 2x isn't all that great, albeit a bit better with an RF extender than an EF III extender.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Hm, good Idea. Though I think the demand for this could be quite low.
I think if people invest in such lenses (my guess is 16k for the 800m and 30k for the 1200mm) its most likely that they want a new body with a high mega pixel count like the R5... I think the R5 or R3 is for wildlife and sport photography a big win over the DSLR counterparts. Especialy the 5D IV (which I still have for backup) is notable behind the R5 in my opinion =)
Upvote
0
Its about Quality
These extenders impact image quality quite a lot (depending on lense used). I have the 1,4 III and the 2x III canon extenders. I tried them in detail on the 70-200 and on my 100-400 4-5,6L IS II (which is a great lense).
Overall my finding was, that the extender barely brings a quality improvment over just using the native lense and simply scaling up.
So this is not a silly lense
Upvote
0
Also, extenders decrease the quality. A native 800mm lense is a lot sharper than a 2x 400m lense.People keep saying just put a 2x on the 600, but with the native 1200 and extenders, you've got 1680 and 2400! RF extenders don't stack, right? Anyway these are mouthwatering but I'll likely never be able to afford a big white again
Sometimes you can even just upscale the sharp 400mm image, instead of using the extender. Even the Canon version III extender are not that great to the image...
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 387325
Guest
I also can’t help but wonder what’s up with the metal mounts, as if they’re just slapping on the RF adaptors and calling it a day. Was hoping the 400 and 600 were stopgaps. We’ll know more in a few days, but I’m more interested in the route Nikon is taking with their built-in TCs and PF lenses. Much more versatile and practical for field use without sacrificing quality.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Agree with your first sentence, but it would be good to see updated, lighter and more compact versions of these lenses, to complement the smaller and lighter RF bodies.
I can think of plenty of other lenses that I'd prefer to be updated first though, and plenty of *new* lenses that are desirable to fill out gaps in the RF range. Particularly a stabilised compact 180mm F5.6 macro (yes I know I'm always prattling on about that, but the now discontinued non-stabilised 180mm F3.5 macro needs replacing with something more compact).
Upvote
0
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.People keep saying just put a 2x on the 600, but with the native 1200 and extenders, you've got 1680 and 2400! RF extenders don't stack, right? Anyway these are mouthwatering but I'll likely never be able to afford a big white again
It will be interesting to see the difference between a native 800mm lens that a 2 x 400mm lens.
I use a 1.4X and 2X on a 600mm lens and both are quite sharp. Focusing speed is good on 1.4X but notably slower focussing with 2X but fine on a static bird.
A 1.4 on a 300mm 2.8 is great.
A side by side comparison might show something but I don't think it will be worth it. Better to get closer than use a longer lens. .
Upvote
0
True, closer is indeed always better. Makes the entire image often more interesting, giving it more depth.
I guess the extender game on primes works better than on zoom lenses. I heard a lot of positive things about that. Though I guess the quality difference is still there to a native lense.
I wonder how many 1200mm lenses canon will actual sell :-D
Upvote
0
T H I S !!!
Damn Canon...
Also those ugly silver adapters...
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!
Upvote
0
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).
Canon reportedly only made 22 one of which they still have. One was sold at auction in Germany last year for € 500K ($560K).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
