Here are the RF 600mm f/11 & RF 800mm f/11 super-telephoto lenses

chris_overseas

I'm New Here
Jan 3, 2015
12
15
100-400mm II not much good for insects? Take a look here for a start https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/
Perhaps "not much use" is too strong a phrasing, but I stand by my opinion that the 100-400 isn't a great lens for insects. There's some good shots in that link but I honestly think a lot of those aren't sharp, and perhaps have suffered from too much cropping or compression? I find the amount of cropping required is often a problem with the 100-400 with insects, that's just the nature of the lens vs subject size.

Nice coincidence on the damselflies though... I happened to see some a couple of weeks ago too - first time I'd really seen them, they're great! I had both the 100-400mm II and 100 macro with me and have to say I was much happier with the results I got from the macro. Unfortunately I don't have too many like-for-like comparison shots to illustrate my point, but here's one example:

100-400mm II: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7761.jpg
100mm macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7849.jpg

The first I had to crop quite heavily and in my view the sharpness and detail fall quite short compared to the second.

The reason for the green background in the second shot is I had someone hold up a big leaf for me for that one. Maybe that's the real reason why I prefer the macro shot :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

chris_overseas

I'm New Here
Jan 3, 2015
12
15
I admire you hiking with an 800mm. I couldn’t even contemplate it. I have a 600mm F4 II and it’s a bit like an aircraft carrier. I need to bring a sturdy tripod and gimbal head. You end up going with so much weight. I have hand held it in safari but it takes its toll.
I don’t mind the 100-400 at all for insects. Of course not as good as a dedicated macro but not bad. It’s a fairly flexible lens. I would have liked Canon to do a good 150-600mm EF lens but the EF era is gone.
I must admit I'm finding it more difficult to lug around than I did a few years ago! I can't hand hold it for more than maybe 30 seconds, and it's not usually worth trying because it's so hard to hold steady enough anyway. What I find works really well however is a Gitzo monopod plus a Mongoose 4th gen gimbal head. They help keep the weight down and are plenty sturdy enough for all but the most challenging conditions. The monopod works better for me than a tripod for tracking rapidly moving animals, and is also very effective in safari vehicles or Zodiacs, where tripods aren't practical.
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
515
467
Kentucky, USA
Perhaps "not much use" is too strong a phrasing, but I stand by my opinion that the 100-400 isn't a great lens for insects. There's some good shots in that link but I honestly think a lot of those aren't sharp, and perhaps have suffered from too much cropping or compression? I find the amount of cropping required is often a problem with the 100-400 with insects, that's just the nature of the lens vs subject size.

Nice coincidence on the damselflies though... I happened to see some a couple of weeks ago too - first time I'd really seen them, they're great! I had both the 100-400mm II and 100 macro with me and have to say I was much happier with the results I got from the macro. Unfortunately I don't have too many like-for-like comparison shots to illustrate my point, but here's one example:

100-400mm II: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7761.jpg
100mm macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7849.jpg

The first I had to crop quite heavily and in my view the sharpness and detail fall quite short compared to the second.

The reason for the green background in the second shot is I had someone hold up a big leaf for me for that one. Maybe that's the real reason why I prefer the macro shot :D
First, I would like to say that you took some beautiful pictures there! :)

But you must have been appreciably closer when you used your 100mm macro, compared to the 100-400, since 1) the dragonfly image is bigger in it, and 2) you had to "crop quite heavily" the image from the 100-400, and 3) the 100-400 can't go wider than 100 which would have explained why the image was so much smaller originally. With all that being said, it kind of calls into question the comparison.
 

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,322
7,068
Perhaps "not much use" is too strong a phrasing, but I stand by my opinion that the 100-400 isn't a great lens for insects. There's some good shots in that link but I honestly think a lot of those aren't sharp, and perhaps have suffered from too much cropping or compression? I find the amount of cropping required is often a problem with the 100-400 with insects, that's just the nature of the lens vs subject size.

Nice coincidence on the damselflies though... I happened to see some a couple of weeks ago too - first time I'd really seen them, they're great! I had both the 100-400mm II and 100 macro with me and have to say I was much happier with the results I got from the macro. Unfortunately I don't have too many like-for-like comparison shots to illustrate my point, but here's one example:

100-400mm II: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7761.jpg
100mm macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7849.jpg

The first I had to crop quite heavily and in my view the sharpness and detail fall quite short compared to the second.

The reason for the green background in the second shot is I had someone hold up a big leaf for me for that one. Maybe that's the real reason why I prefer the macro shot :D
Now show us some dragonflies in flight taken with your 100mm macro. There are plenty taken with the 100-400mm II in the link for comparison.
 

chris_overseas

I'm New Here
Jan 3, 2015
12
15
First, I would like to say that you took some beautiful pictures there! :)

But you must have been appreciably closer when you used your 100mm macro, compared to the 100-400, since 1) the dragonfly image is bigger in it, and 2) you had to "crop quite heavily" the image from the 100-400, and 3) the 100-400 can't go wider than 100 which would have explained why the image was so much smaller originally. With all that being said, it kind of calls into question the comparison.
Thank you. Yes absolutely I was closer, that was partly my point. The MFD of the 100-400 combined with the small size of insects make it hard to avoid having to crop quite heavily, that's one reason I say it's not a great lens for insects. If you zoom both photos to 100% there's a visible difference in sharpness too which is independent of the cropping. Admittedly some of that is likely from camera shake and wind moving the subject, but the macro is a sharper lens without a doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 100-400 and find it incredibly versatile, I just don't think insects are its strong point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
515
467
Kentucky, USA
Thank you. Yes absolutely I was closer, that was partly my point. The MFD of the 100-400 combined with the small size of insects make it hard to avoid having to crop quite heavily, that's one reason I say it's not a great lens for insects. If you zoom both photos to 100% there's a visible difference in sharpness too which is independent of the cropping. Admittedly some of that is likely from camera shake and wind moving the subject, but the macro is a sharper lens without a doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 100-400 and find it incredibly versatile, I just don't think insects are its strong point.
Thanks for mentioning why you were closer with the macro. That makes perfect sense, and a closer focus allows higher max. magnification and that is why I often look for a very high max. mag. value when deciding on which lens to get. With that said, the macro shot is way better.
 

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,322
7,068
Thank you. Yes absolutely I was closer, that was partly my point. The MFD of the 100-400 combined with the small size of insects make it hard to avoid having to crop quite heavily, that's one reason I say it's not a great lens for insects. If you zoom both photos to 100% there's a visible difference in sharpness too which is independent of the cropping. Admittedly some of that is likely from camera shake and wind moving the subject, but the macro is a sharper lens without a doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 100-400 and find it incredibly versatile, I just don't think insects are its strong point.
What lens do you use for dragonflies in flight that is much stronger than the 100-400mm II? And what do you use for butterflies that get skittish when you get close?
 

chris_overseas

I'm New Here
Jan 3, 2015
12
15
Now show us some dragonflies in flight taken with your 100mm macro. There are plenty taken with the 100-400mm II in the link for comparison.
Sadly I struggled to get decent shutter speeds that day so gave up on that pretty quickly. The only in-flight shot I haven't yet deleted
happens to have been taken with the 100mm, though it's not great - and as you can tell from the focus it also wasn't intentional! http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7869.jpg I'm not sure the 100-400 has much of an advantage over the macro for small flying subjects like these though because the same limitations still apply whether flying or stationary, and the damselflies are cooperative enough that they come within comfortable range of the macro.

Slightly bigger subjects like small birds are different story, there I'd say the 100-400 really starts to come into its own. Here's one from the back yard a month or so ago at 400mm that would have been impossible with the macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7137.jpg (taken from much further away than I'd have liked because the goldfinches are so skittish I can't get anywhere near them. The robins are much more cooperative! :LOL:)

I guess this has diverged a lot from the original topic, so by way of steering it back a little... I'm genuinely curious to see what the two f/11 lenses are capable of when combined with the likely stellar AF and decent high ISO of the R5. I suspect with good light, action shots might be more readily obtainable than the f/11 implies.
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
515
467
Kentucky, USA
Sadly I struggled to get decent shutter speeds that day so gave up on that pretty quickly. The only in-flight shot I haven't yet deleted
happens to have been taken with the 100mm, though it's not great - and as you can tell from the focus it also wasn't intentional! http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7869.jpg I'm not sure the 100-400 has much of an advantage over the macro for small flying subjects like these though because the same limitations still apply whether flying or stationary, and the damselflies are cooperative enough that they come within range of the macro.

Slightly bigger subjects like small birds are different story, there I'd say the 100-400 really starts to come into its own. Here's one from the back yard a month or so ago at 400mm that would have been impossible with the macro: http://www.redyeti.net/upload/MLF_7137.jpg (taken from much further away than I'd have liked because the goldfinches are so skittish I can't get anywhere near them. The robins are much more cooperative! :LOL:)

I guess this has diverged a lot from the original topic, so by way of steering it back a little... I'm genuinely curious to see what the two f/11 lenses are capable of when combined with the likely stellar AF and decent high ISO of the R5. I suspect with good light, action shots might be more readily obtainable than the f/11 implies.
If you're interested in the long lenses for little things like dragonflies taken from a distance, I suggest you look at getting the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS lens which has a 0.33 max magnification. It's the max. mag. that's crucial to get a close to full sensor shot of a dragonfly, and the zoom will help you have any chance of following it in flight. Have you looked at the smallest width image the 800mm f11 can take? I think it has 0.14x max mag, so it'd be 257mm wide (10") which means you'll be cropping out the wazoo, so what good is it for little things?
 

chris_overseas

I'm New Here
Jan 3, 2015
12
15
If you're interested in the long lenses for little things like dragonflies, I suggest you look at getting the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS lens which has a 0.33 max magnification. It's the max. mag. that's crucial to get a close to full sensor shot of a dragonfly, and the zoom will help you have any chance of following it in flight. Have you looked at the smallest width image the 800mm f11 can take? I think it has 0.14x max mag, so it'd be 257mm wide (10") which means you'll be cropping out the wazoo, so what good is it for little things?
Yes I agree, the 800 will be hopeless for anything small - my comments on the f/11 lenses were regarding action in general, sorry I should have made that clear. I don't think I've ever even attempted taking a photo of an insect with my 800!
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
457
204
But you must have been appreciably closer when you used your 100mm macro, compared to the 100-400, since 1) the dragonfly image is bigger in it, and 2) you had to "crop quite heavily" the image from the 100-400, and 3) the 100-400 can't go wider than 100 which would have explained why the image was so much smaller originally. With all that being said, it kind of calls into question the comparison.
I think those are all factors you DO have to face when making a real-world decision. A choice between lens A and B for a given subject or shot is never going to be a FAIR test. If the given subject is going to require massive cropping with one of the alternatives, then you have to base your decision on that in part. You can't just shrug and say, well, the MTF curve is comperable so it should be a toss-up if we were being fair.
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
515
467
Kentucky, USA
I think those are all factors you DO have to face when making a real-world decision. A choice between lens A and B for a given subject or shot is never going to be a FAIR test. If the given subject is going to require massive cropping with one of the alternatives, then you have to base your decision on that in part. You can't just shrug and say, well, the MTF curve is comperable so it should be a toss-up if we were being fair.
I already responded accordingly to chris_overseas above. I guess you didn't see it. I'll paste a copy of it here so you can see it:

"Thanks for mentioning why you were closer with the macro. That makes perfect sense, and a closer focus allows higher max. magnification and that is why I often look for a very high max. mag. value when deciding on which lens to get. With that said, the macro shot is way better."

OK?
 

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,322
7,068
I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the specs now show the f/11 aperture is fixed and no stopping down.

Does anyone know where Canon hides its MTF curves - I can't find them?
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,858
1,718
I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the specs now show the f/11 aperture is fixed and no stopping down.

Does anyone know where Canon hides its MTF curves - I can't find them?
So everyone who didn't complain about it being only f/11, will now complain that they can't lower it further. :ROFLMAO: Not that I would blame them, in this case.
 

JayLT

EOS 90D
Jul 8, 2020
11
18
As far as i see its only f11 or have i misunderstood the launch video
It is f/11 only and fixed at that aperture. It was mentioned a couple times that they will work with both of the new tele-converters with AF, I would be interesting to see the results of that just for fun!
 
  • Like
Reactions: geffy

okaro

EOS 90D
Oct 10, 2015
132
9
Why f11 what am I missing here.
Price and size: 800 mm f/5.6L is 4.5 kg and costs 14000 €. This is 1.3 kg and 1080 €. With DSLRs it was harder to make slower lenses because of the autofocus. These are not for serious nature photographers who shoot at dusk. These are for more casual use carried while hiking in good weather. The intention is to compete with lenses made for smaller sensors as well as super zooms. Canon G3 X for example has lens that longest is equivalent to 600 mm f/16. Sony RX 100 IV is 600 mm f/11.

I think Canon's long term strategy is to move everyone or almost everyone to full frame so the EOS RP is equivalent to the Nikon Z50. To make this affordable they need cheaper and slower lenses. I think they should do 24-70 mm f/5.6 (or 5.6-8) with IS. If this sounds slow the kit lens of M50 is equivalent to 24-72 mm f/5.6-10. In this way a user could get a cheap system and then supplement it with fast and affordable primes if needed.
 

geffy

EOS 90D
Jun 24, 2019
109
74
Price and size: 800 mm f/5.6L is 4.5 kg and costs 14000 €. This is 1.3 kg and 1080 €. With DSLRs it was harder to make slower lenses because of the autofocus. These are not for serious nature photographers who shoot at dusk. These are for more casual use carried while hiking in good weather. The intention is to compete with lenses made for smaller sensors as well as super zooms. Canon G3 X for example has lens that longest is equivalent to 600 mm f/16. Sony RX 100 IV is 600 mm f/11.

I think Canon's long term strategy is to move everyone or almost everyone to full frame so the EOS RP is equivalent to the Nikon Z50. To make this affordable they need cheaper and slower lenses. I think they should do 24-70 mm f/5.6 (or 5.6-8) with IS. If this sounds slow the kit lens of M50 is equivalent to 24-72 mm f/5.6-10. In this way a user could get a cheap system and then supplement it with fast and affordable primes if needed.
rx10 is f4 at 600 equivalent for exposure while its f11 for bokey it is a stunning lens for what it is it is an eye opener for whoever uses it
 

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,346
1,150
Turku, Finland
As a bird photographer, with a 400 F4 DO II , 500 F5.6 PF and 600mm F4 lenses. I have absolutely NO interest in F11 lenses because of two things
Thanks for telling us you're not part of the target audience. Now why should we care? I'm not in the market for many things but I don't run around Internet forums explaining how those things aren't for me personally.

These are consumer offerings, not for serious wildlife photographers
Gee, thank you Captain Obvious. I'm sure this fact was lost to many people who genuinely thought they could replace their €15,000 EF 600mm f/4L with one of these.