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.Why f11 what am I missing here.
Good point. I wonder if that section functions as a tripod collar also... Looks possible.Looks like there's an Arca-Swiss wedge on the bottom of these!
Not that you would want to add the TC, per se, just that you might wind up needing more magnification!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
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.
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.Not a lens to render smooth backgrounds tho for wildlife then.
Not that you would want to add the TC, per se, just that you might wind up needing more magnification!
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.
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?