Yes but this newer model is a different beast entirely. No special order needed for a souped up 600 f4The "original" EF 1200 was built to order(but also a stop faster and almost six-figures at launch[~$90K before tax]).
Upvote
0
Yes but this newer model is a different beast entirely. No special order needed for a souped up 600 f4The "original" EF 1200 was built to order(but also a stop faster and almost six-figures at launch[~$90K before tax]).
View attachment 202572
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.
Hm, good Idea. Though I think the demand for this could be quite low.I wonder if the rear metal element can be factory -removed, in order to convert RF into EF, since there are still many professional DSLR users.
Provided these are the real pictures of the lenses.
Its about QualityWhat'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.
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
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.The 400 and 600 are state of the art lens designs that followed years of a monumental development effort. No need to update when just changing the mount or adding an integrated TC. They are probably working on lens designs that actually need to be updated (300mm f 2.8?)
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.Also, extenders decrease the quality. A native 800mm lense is a lot sharper than a 2x 400m lense.
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...
True, closer is indeed always better. Makes the entire image often more interesting, giving it more depth.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.
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. .
T H I S !!!It's a shame this isn't just an 800mm f/5.6 with a built in 1.4 Extender to make it an 1120mm f/8. I can't honestly dream of too many uses for such a long 1200mm lens, but I would love to see it being put into use.
The 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4.0 where always late and are just discount 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0. I would expect to see a 120-300 f/2.8 and 200-500 f/4.0 instead so that you pick 'one' of the £13,000 monsters.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!
Yes, you can put an extension tube between two TCs, but you lose distant focus, so only useful for close up subjects.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.
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. .