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

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D
Feb 7, 2019
245
227
UK
Very interesting looking.. f11 at 800mm appeals to me more than it does at 600mm though. In the right conditions, such as African or Indian safaris, 800mm in a lens that small and light will be awesome!
 
  • Like
Reactions: chasingrealness

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
704
869
www.instagram.com
Why f11 what am I missing here.
I know this forum has discussed it at length, but my thoughts are that the f/11 sacrifice is manageable considering how little light is needed to focus using these bodies (compared to a DSLR anyway). I think if you are a full frame user, the only other way to get 800mm of magnification (regardless of f/value) is either spend A LOT of money, or use a teleconverter on a somewhat expensive lens and give up autofocus and IQ (in many instances). Or, get a crop sensor camera or M4/3 with a bigger lens.

For me, I see this as a sign that Canon is trying to make full frame more accessible to budget full frame buyers. There could be any number of reasons why Canon would do that. Maybe because Canon sees consumers moving up-market to full frame due to competition of smart phones at the lower end, or Canon sees an opportunity to squeeze out smaller sensor manufacturers in m4/3 or aps-c, or maybe they just want to get out of producing smaller sensors and need a way to keep price sensitive buyers in the Canon ecosystem.

Whatever Canon's reasons, making massive magnification accessible on full frame at a (assumed) budget friendly price point seems to be targeting people who want big magnification but can't afford 5 figure lenses. I'd bet there are plenty of people out there in that situation.

Obviously this argument goes right out the window if these aren't price conscious lenses!
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
Questions / thoughts:

1) Retractable supertele primes: did anyone see that coming? I sure didn't. I presumed all the wow factor would be in getting the barrel diameter and weight down due to f/11.

2) Why the heck is 800mm f/11 requiring a 95mm front filter size? Did an earlier 77 / 82 / 86mm concept vignette too much or something? Or is 'throwing away some of the periphery' some clever means to salvage a sharper image?

3) It looks like all the controls / rings / buttons / etc. are on the extending bit. It won't trombone like the 100-400L I in use -- it will surely be fixed in length -- but the handling may feel familiar to 100-400L I in that all the control items are 'down barrel' somewhat

4) When did John Mulaney become a photography model?

5) Is a DO element in a lens that does not get the green ring a common thing? Is this a first, or have DO elements been hiding in non-DO named lenses for some time?

- A
 

Tangent

EOS 90D
Nov 13, 2015
115
59
Looks like there's an Arca-Swiss wedge on the bottom of these!
Good point. I wonder if that section functions as a tripod collar also... Looks possible.
... Looking more closely I see in the small lens images that this section has the IS control, so not likely to rotate, but perhaps it is possible to rotate from vert to horiz somehow. Otherwise we might want to mount it on an L plate! For most shots with a lens such as this I'd be in horiz mode anyway, so in practice not a huge deal. Anyway, we'll know soon enough.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron D

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
111
93
I only had the old 400 5.6 i remember i was bothered sometimes by the long 3.5m minimum focusing distance. Not very often tho.

These new lenses apparently are compatible with both TCs but who wants to add TC on an F11 lens? Maybe for moon shots or long exposures or some landscapes
Not that you would want to add the TC, per se, just that you might wind up needing more magnification!
 

Aaron Lozano

EOS M50
Nov 12, 2019
26
22
I wonder if it would it be possible to get an L version of these at F8

Or even a 400 F5.6L with that precise design.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
For me, I see this as a sign that Canon is trying to make full frame more accessible to budget full frame buyers. There could be any number of reasons why Canon would do that.

So many reasons:

1) Ask Olympus. Small sensored platforms are slowly dying out. In 10 years time, FF may be *entry* level for ILC buyers if cell phones continue to devour dedicated camera sales.

2) In a Borg move, Canon is diversifying the appeal of the RF platform -- resistance is futile. We got a slice of Ferrari exotic super lenses, now we get some downright pedestrian ones. This is a very different strategy than Sony or Nikon, which started with small-ish f/4 zooms and then pivoted towards pro glass.

3) Canon is showing the world exactly what this fully operational battlestation sexy new platform can do if you fully commit to one variable. Skull-splittingly sharp f/1.2 primes. Epic f/2 zooms. Now we get tiny f/7.1 zooms and f/11 primes. The world is your oyster on this new platform.

4) In the timeless referendum of 'Mirrorless is all about being small and light' vs. 'Mirrorless is all about doing what FF SLRs can do and then some', Canon is wisely putting money down on both. Call this appeasement of the 'small and light' crowd if you will, but these smaller lenses are putting down quite a marker for those that want to do more with less size and weight.

- A
 

RMac

5Diii 7D M5 C300
Not a lens to render smooth backgrounds tho for wildlife then.
Well, f/11 and the use of diffractive optics are both likely to be knocks against this lens in the blurry background department. Then again, at 600mm or 800mm, even at f/11, if your subject is relatively close compared to your background (a song bird, for instance), higher f-numbers can still give you a lot of subject separation from the background.

For instance, this is shot at 400mm f/8 (I was shooting my ef 70-200 f2.8L ISiii with a 2xiii extender and stopped down to f/8 because this combo is a little soft wide-open). I shot it on a crop body (7D) and had to crop the final image a fair bit. I don't find the background distracting in the least. That's partly because of contrast (it was a shadowy surface of a pond) but also because it's nicely blurred, even at f/8 (bird was probably 5-6 yards/meters away, background more like 20-40 yards/meters away). I'd imagine either of these lenses on a full-frame body would yield very similar if not better results provided the use of diffractive optics doesn't do anything too obnoxious to the rendering of out-of-focus regions.

IMG_6643-01.jpg
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
Not that you would want to add the TC, per se, just that you might wind up needing more magnification!

From the other thread CR Guy just posted:

"Each of these teleconverters will be compatible with the RF 100-500mm f/4-7.1L IS USM, RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM."

Reach for the stars, people. Just don't ask for bokeh at the same time. :p

- A
 

Stuart

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.
Jul 22, 2010
361
116
London & Woking
www.ephotozine.com
Retractable - does that mean the lens barrel twists and clicks into place before it can be used.
Will it still work is not fully extended? Even with off focus effects.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
Well, f/11 and the use of diffractive optics are both likely to be knocks against this lens in the blurry background department. Then again, at 600mm or 800mm, even at f/11, if your subject is relatively close compared to your background (a song bird, for instance), higher f-numbers can still give you a lot of subject separation from the background.

For instance, this is shot at 400mm f/8 (I was shooting my ef 70-200 f2.8L ISiii with a 2xiii extender and stopped down to f/8 because this combo is a little soft wide-open). I shot it on a crop body (7D) and had to crop the final image a fair bit. I don't find the background distracting in the least. That's partly because of contrast (it was a shadowy surface of a pond) but also because it's nicely blurred, even at f/8 (bird was probably 5-6 yards/meters away, background more like 20-40 yards/meters away). I'd imagine either of these lenses on a full-frame body would yield very similar if not better results provided the use of diffractive optics doesn't do anything too obnoxious to the rendering of out-of-focus regions.

I take your point (and that's a lovely shot), but just as some folks are addicted to reach, others are to subject separation.

You very artfully worked the physics and background there. Not all folks have the proximity to subject or relatively friendly/distant background behind the subject. A larger max aperture lens would be a more powerful tool in that instance.

I just don't think an f/11 prime will be aimed at anyone who appreciates all of that. These lenses scream of amateur photog on safari... or possibly the traveling birder on a family trip who vowed not to bring the kitchen sink but still wanted absurd reach anyway. ;)

- A
 

m1mm1m

I'm New Here
Feb 6, 2019
11
26
Is the beginning of the end of the Big White?

I know since the 100-400 came out with it's excellent IQ and IS and good pairing with the 1.4x...... my 600 has seen little use... Specially given the cropability of the 5DSR.. This lens gives me a usable "effective" 100-800 range....

This just seems to be an extension of that same concept... smaller, lighter, more portable -- and most importantly... without giving up IQ...

Am I wrong?
 

Kiton

Too deep in Canon to list! :o
Jun 13, 2015
63
48
Those lens would be great for news fotogs to keep in the trunk for hostage taking, bomb scars etc where you don't want to drag a 400 2.8 with a converter. If the price is right, I am getting the 800mm.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
Is the beginning of the end of the Big White?

I know since the 100-400 came out with it's excellent IQ and IS and good pairing with the 1.4x...... my 600 has seen little use... Specially given the cropability of the 5DSR.. This lens gives me a usable "effective" 100-800 range....

This just seems to be an extension of that same concept... smaller, lighter, more portable -- and most importantly... without giving up IQ...

Am I wrong?

This doesn't end/replace the superwhites. Not at all. This is reach for the masses without needing a loan or teleconverter to get it. This is Canon listening to its users, and we should applaud it, IMHO.

I think RF superwhites will eventually happen. They kind of have to.

And I would be absolutely stunned if the IQ from an f/11 max aperture lens -- even if sharp -- had half the pop / color / contrast / impact of an f/5.6 shot from a proper superwhite.

- A
 
Last edited:
Nov 3, 2014
698
507
Fascinating. Did not see these lenses coming. Curious to see how they perform. Canon full of surprises these days.

If Canon expects them to be used for video they'll need some sort of tripod mount. I guess clever folks could sort something out on their own.