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

[Andreasb]

If you actually read and had understood what I wrote, you might have realized I was trying to do you and many others a favor, these lenses will on an average day most likely produce average image quality because of too low shutter speeds or very grainy images because you have to increase you ISO by up to 3 stops to get the image sharp and shake free. And then there is the beginning of diffraction as well to care about. I'm sure Canon will sell lots of these, but I fear the customers wont be that happy.

What I was trying to tell people that don't have the experience to shoot at these focal lengths is that it is hard to shoot long lenses, and it doesn't get better at F11

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.



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.

 

[Codebunny]

If you actually read and had understood what I wrote, you might have realized I was trying to do you and many others a favor, these lenses will on an average day most likely produce average image quality because of too low shutter speeds or very grainy images because you have to increase you ISO by up to 3 stops to get the image sharp and shake free. And then there is the beginning of diffraction as well to care about. I'm sure Canon will sell lots of these, but I fear the customers wont be that happy.

What I was trying to tell people that don't have the experience to shoot at these focal lengths is that it is hard to shoot long lenses, and it doesn't get better at F11

I think people buying these will be first time wildlife shooters and they'll find the images they produce to be way ahead of what comes out their phone. Certainly form the sample images I would not be disappointed posting a image out of this to the web. I don't think I would be printing these images, but not disappointed ether. The sample of the squirrel at ISO1600, f/11, 1/160 looked perfectly fine coming from a EOS R.

 

[geffy]

I had a look at the sample images and while i get its not original file size. they are worrying, well composed professional shots that look different from well composed professional shots and i worry these super teles are another 24 to 240 relying on software for applied quality, hence the unusual look

 

[AlanF]

If you actually read and had understood what I wrote, you might have realized I was trying to do you and many others a favor, these lenses will on an average day most likely produce average image quality because of too low shutter speeds or very grainy images because you have to increase you ISO by up to 3 stops to get the image sharp and shake free. And then there is the beginning of diffraction as well to care about. I'm sure Canon will sell lots of these, but I fear the customers wont be that happy.

What I was trying to tell people that don't have the experience to shoot at these focal lengths is that it is hard to shoot long lenses, and it doesn't get better at F11

I am sure I could shoot with these lenses and get images that would be very satisfying for me. And those who don’t have much experience would soon learn how to improve their technique and discover when and where they are suitable.

 

[Pixel]

"A pig"

Taking Apart the Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM

Here I sit, the guy who gets poetic writing about tiny resolution differences in high-priced wide-aperture lenses, having just bought this lens. Its aperture is in the diffraction-softening range. The manufacturer's (pronounced 'better than reality') MTF charts aren't very good. So why did I buy...

www.lensrentals.com

 

[Darkknight59]

Rf 600....I'm tempted to buy this lens as it is intriguing ...however I'm not into "birding" or "wildlife" photography ..what would be other uses for this lens recommended?

 

[SecureGSM]

Rf 600....I'm tempted to buy this lens as it is intriguing ...however I'm not into "birding" or "wildlife" photography ..what would be other uses for this lens recommended?

social distancing friendly portraiture with MFD being around 6m? seriously though: airshows, even sport outdoors (good lighting conditions). could be a bit too long at times but football, soccer should be just fine.

 

[brad-man]

Rf 600....I'm tempted to buy this lens as it is intriguing ...however I'm not into "birding" or "wildlife" photography ..what would be other uses for this lens recommended?

Part of a pirate costume next Halloween...

 

[AlanF]

social distancing friendly portraiture with MFD being around 6m? seriously though: airshows, even sport outdoors (good lighting conditions). could be a bit too long at times but football, soccer should be just fine.

Many a true word spoken in jest. One of my little jobs is to photo newcomers and I have told them it will be outside with a telephoto.

 

[SteveC]

Many a true word spoken in jest. One of my little jobs is to photo newcomers and I have told them it will be outside with a telephoto.

I joked the other day (somewhere else) about holding a club meeting on a ranch, one chair per acre.

(Edit: And I forgot myself, sorry--I try to supply metric on international sites. 2.5 acres makes up (roughly) one hectare. A hectare is 100x100m, an acre is 1/640th of a square mile so ten acres is 1/8 x 1/8th of a mile which happens to be roughly a 200x200m square. [it's convenient that 100 meters is about 110 years, and 110 yards actually is 1/16th of a mile.])

 

[AlanF]

I joked the other day (somewhere else) about holding a club meeting on a ranch, one chair per acre.

(Edit: And I forgot myself, sorry--I try to supply metric on international sites. 2.5 acres makes up (roughly) one hectare. A hectare is 100x100m, an acre is 1/640th of a square mile so ten acres is 1/8 x 1/8th of a mile which happens to be roughly a 200x200m square. [it's convenient that 100 meters is about 110 years, and 110 yards actually is 1/16th of a mile.])

The good old days in 1935 when Jesse Owens ran 20.3s for the 220 yards (201.17m) and simultaneously broke the 200m world record.

 

[privatebydesign]

I joked the other day (somewhere else) about holding a club meeting on a ranch, one chair per acre.

(Edit: And I forgot myself, sorry--I try to supply metric on international sites. 2.5 acres makes up (roughly) one hectare. A hectare is 100x100m, an acre is 1/640th of a square mile so ten acres is 1/8 x 1/8th of a mile which happens to be roughly a 200x200m square. [it's convenient that 100 meters is about 110 years, and 110 yards actually is 1/16th of a mile.])

So let me get this right, my lot is just over 5 acres, or 2 hectares, or 220 years [sic] ?

 

[SteveC]

So let me get this right, my lot is just over 5 acres, or 2 hectares, or 220 years [sic] ?

Hah, good catch! But even if I had typed yards, you can't do that, area vs. length. It's handy of course that 100m = 110yards (with a fudge factor) because it lets you convert acres to hectares (with that same fudge factor, squared).

Of course it feels like we've been dealing with [controversy that shall remain un-named] trolls bringing it onto every thread on this board for about 110 years, so maybe that's why I slipped.

 

[ChrisBainbridge1]

HI, wanted to share my first tests with the new RF 800mm F11 lens in case they are useful to people considering this or the 600mm?

Test carried yesterday. All 3 lenses mounted on Canon EOS RP. Gitzo tripod, IS turned off. 2 second timer. 10 metre distance to the Queen (for me a typical perched bird distance).

Just to add, I am a bird photographer and my current preferred set-up is the Canon 600mm F4 II, usually with a 1.4 III. Main bodies 5D Mark IV and 5DSr (it is great for wildlife!).

I mainly wanted to see how the new Canon lens performed against the 100-400 II (with extender) and was pleasantly surprised. To me it looks to have resolved significantly more detail. I know that my 100-400 and 600 are sharp copies - and the mirrorless body removes any questions over lens micro-adjustment.

Bought this and the RP for a light weight alternative to lugging round the 600 F4.

Time will tell how this lens performs in the real world - with that F11 limitatiion. Didn't want to invest in a more suitable mirrorless body (than the RP) for bird photography if the lens itself wasn't any good, but might have to save my pennies now!

 

[AlanF]

Chris, having Her Majesty as a "bird" is simply beyond the pale. It's pistols at dawn, socially distanced of course. If it stops raining and I can find a tenner, I'll take a photo with both a 1.4xTCIII and 2xTCIII on a 100-400mm II to compare with your leftmost image.

 

[ChrisBainbridge1]

Chris, having Her Majesty as a "bird" is simply beyond the pale. It's pistols at dawn, socially distanced of course. If it stops raining and I can find a tenner, I'll take a photo with both a 1.4xTCIII and 2xTCIII on a 100-400mm II to compare with your leftmost image.

Hi Alan, no insult intended to Her Majesty, good luck with the rain stopping. I am still aiming to try and get some real shots this weekend, but as it is a Bank Holiday weekend in England, don't hold out too much hope.

 

[usern4cr]

HI, wanted to share my first tests with the new RF 800mm F11 lens in case they are useful to people considering this or the 600mm?

Test carried yesterday. All 3 lenses mounted on Canon EOS RP. Gitzo tripod, IS turned off. 2 second timer. 10 metre distance to the Queen (for me a typical perched bird distance).

Just to add, I am a bird photographer and my current preferred set-up is the Canon 600mm F4 II, usually with a 1.4 III. Main bodies 5D Mark IV and 5DSr (it is great for wildlife!).

I mainly wanted to see how the new Canon lens performed against the 100-400 II (with extender) and was pleasantly surprised. To me it looks to have resolved significantly more detail. I know that my 100-400 and 600 are sharp copies - and the mirrorless body removes any questions over lens micro-adjustment.

Bought this and the RP for a light weight alternative to lugging round the 600 F4.

Time will tell how this lens performs in the real world - with that F11 limitatiion. Didn't want to invest in a more suitable mirrorless body (than the RP) for bird photography if the lens itself wasn't any good, but might have to save my pennies now!


View attachment 192503

Thanks for your post, Chris! - it's really helpful to see the images side by side at the same size.
I thinks it's quite clear that the resolution of the 800mm f11 is roughly in-between that of the other 2 choices. But the contrast might(?) be lower on the 800 f11 than the others.

I have a couple questions (if you don't mind):
* Why does the 800 f11 image seem (to me) darker? Is it possible it needed more exposure, or is the contrast suffering across the image from the DO lens edges (or both)?
* The # of pixels in the height of each image must be somewhat different, due to different lens magnification (560mm vs 800mm vs 840mm) and sensor pixel size. Did you have to up-sample two of them to match the other? (and which one had the most pixel height?). If you up-sampled the 800 f11 image to fit the (un-resampled) 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC then it would be interesting to see the identical test, but this time down-sample the 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC image to the size of the (un-resampled) 800 11 one - I'd be curious if that made any noticeable visual improvement in the 800 f11 relative to the 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC?

Another post you might want to consider, is to compare (like above) the images from the 800 f11 versus the 800 f11 + RF 1.4xTC. Show one picture with the 800 up-sampled to fit the 800 + 1.4xTC and a separate picture with the 800 + 1.4xTC down-sampled to fit the 800. That would let me (and others) know what the benefit is to use the RF 1.4xTC on the 800 f11 lens is (versus just not using it).

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for your post, Chris! - it's really helpful to see the images side by side at the same size.
I thinks it's quite clear that the resolution of the 800mm f11 is roughly in-between that of the other 2 choices. But the contrast might(?) be lower on the 800 f11 than the others.

I have a couple questions (if you don't mind):
* Why does the 800 f11 image seem (to me) darker? Is it possible it needed more exposure, or is the contrast suffering across the image from the DO lens edges (or both)?
* The # of pixels in the height of each image must be somewhat different, due to different lens magnification (560mm vs 800mm vs 840mm) and sensor pixel size. Did you have to up-sample two of them to match the other? (and which one had the most pixel height?). If you up-sampled the 800 f11 image to fit the (un-resampled) 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC then it would be interesting to see the identical test, but this time down-sample the 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC image to the size of the (un-resampled) 800 11 one - I'd be curious if that made any noticeable visual improvement in the 800 f11 relative to the 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC?

Another post you might want to consider, is to compare (like above) the images from the 800 f11 versus the 800 f11 + RF 1.4xTC. Show one picture with the 800 up-sampled to fit the 800 + 1.4xTC and a separate picture with the 800 + 1.4xTC down-sampled to fit the 800. That would let me (and others) know what the benefit is to use the RF 1.4xTC on the 800 f11 lens is (versus just not using it).

The relative merits of using the 1.4xTC depend on the number of megapixels on the sensor. On the high resolution R5, it will be close to useless as f/11 onwards is far into diffraction limitation. On the lower resolution RP that Chris used or the R6, you might see some small benefit, depending on how good the TC is and the compatibility of the lens. I calculated the theoretical effects here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/

 

[usern4cr]

The relative merits of using the 1.4xTC depend on the number of megapixels on the sensor. On the high resolution R5, it will be close to useless as f/11 onwards is far into diffraction limitation. On the lower resolution RP that Chris used or the R6, you might see some small benefit, depending on how good the TC is and the compatibility of the lens. I calculated the theoretical effects here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/

In your previous post you mention you expect the 100-500 ...-f7.1 + 1.4TC to outresolve the 800mm f11 on the R5. It would be nice to see an actual side-by-side comparison to make sure of this (both for resolution and for contrast). It'd also be good to have confirmation to everyone considering what to buy with the R5 (whether to buy the 800 f11 or just add the RF 1.4TC to the 100-500).

 

[BeenThere]

In your previous post you mention you expect the 100-500 ...-f7.1 + 1.4TC to outresolve the 800mm f11 on the R5. It would be nice to see an actual side-by-side comparison to make sure of this (both for resolution and for contrast). It'd also be good to have confirmation to everyone considering what to buy with the R5 (whether to buy the 800 f11 or just add the RF 1.4TC to the 100-500).

For some, the large price difference between those two choices may outweigh resolution differences. For those with the wherewithal, maybe not.