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

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,263
925
I've been trying to keep an open mind about these, but I'll almost certainly have a 100-500 and a 1.4x which gives me 700 mm at f/10 in a lens which is just a few mm longer than the 600/11 DO when retracted and much shorter than the 800. I also get (with the 1.4x) around three times the maximum magnification for butterflies, snakes etc., and I won't need to buy any new filters! Or indeed a lens hood. The only disadvantage I will have is weight but even that is not a huge difference vs the 800.
The main differentiation is cost per performance.
The 100-500 will probably cost 3000$ and 500$ for the 1.4x extender (at least).
It's sharpest point won't be at 500mm and the extended may degrade that slightly as well, I don't see it being as good as the 800/11 and it may have a somewhat busier background rendering.

But we are comparing different things altogether, a long prime is always going to be much more specialised, and with a slow aperture, that takes it even further.

Actually, that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it basically forces its user to maximise its narrow operating range.
(Although I am sure most people would curse if something suddenly came closer to them, and they couldn't achieve focus or if there is not enough light to get a usable image)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billybob

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,091
12,779
If you are going to use those lenses without hoods you might need to consider adding protective filters. Hard to imagine that won't cause some flare issues. I wonder how much bigger they are with the hood?
The one problem with DO and PF lenses is flare. They don't work well against the light, and you need a hood unless the sun is behind you.
 
Feb 7, 2013
123
38
My goodness they are light. The 800mm lighter than the 28-70!

Clever retractable design also. Important given these will rarely (if ever) be the only lens you will want to bring out with you.

Assuming IQ is up to scratch I can these going down very well with enthusiast wildlife photographers, particularly those that are on the go.

agree good design, hopefully affordable and punters can upgrade later if they need faster lenses - e.g., buying 2nd hand EF prime 600 EF F4 or Sigma equiv Lens that they may do for the RF mount, e.g., 60-600mm EF, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: chasingrealness

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Nice to see you back on the forum. Fully agree with you, it's quite interesting to see the direction Canon is going. When they innovate, they really go all out.

Did you comment on the upcoming RF 50 mm 1.8 already somewhere? :LOL:


I chatter more on Twitter these days. But I tend to re-surface here when 'Canta' arrives with all the presents.

And I really want to witness the freak out when any of the following occurs with the R5:

1) the R5 turns out to be a $3499 camera just as I predicted, or​
2) 8K is onboard but magically requires a pricey one-time trip to the shop for unlocking or requires a very expensive optional bolt-on and the whole world screams out loud​

...but that would be off-topic. ;)

- A
 
Last edited:

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
There is a second photo that shows what appears to be a mounting hole. I suspect a optional foot might mount there. They are light, and with both in lens IS + IBIS, many may not need a tripod mount.


Good eye MSP I missed it!

Surely a foot mounting option... which would imply the ring for rotating to portrait might already part of the lens, no?

- A
 

Terry Danks

I'm New Here
Sep 2, 2018
15
17
I want to like these things. People seem intent on pointing out the obvious, i.e., they will not supplant the white supers. Of course they won't! This misses the point IMO.
I've owned both the 600 f/4 L IS Canon and an older MF 800mm f5.6 Nikkor. So, I have more than a few years experience schlepping them about. To put it mildly, they were not very portable.

These new lenses could be game changers. I hope so. I reserve judgement until I see the prices and get some reviews as to how well IS, combined with IBIS works, as well as image quality of the optics.
We're already seeing software that can emulate bokeh. Call it what you will, it just may be part of the future and likely will find its way into more widespread usage as it improves. Assuming it WILL improve.
I recall when Canon's IS was referred to contemptuously as "wobbly bits" in lenses that no decent lens maker would ever consider! This, of course, was the refrain of the fan bois whose preferred brand had not yet brought stabilized lenses to market. I also heard on one occasion that"digital has ruined photography." LOL! Never underestimate how reactionary some people can be and how resistant to change.
I no longer have the 600 f/4. I still do have the EF300mm f/2.8L IS and 1.4TC. It too is more than a handful for other than short periods. I look forward to at least hearing more about these lenses and have an open mind. Whether or not I purchase one remains to be seen.
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,034
904
We have to keep the quality expectations low. Then we will be happy. Build and IQ
 

mppix

EOS RP
Feb 13, 2018
209
177
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

IMO, these lenses are more a replacement for a binocular than for the existing great whites in scope.

I am thinking people with outdoors jobs, e.g. rangers, or in outdoor recreational activities, like trekking and bike tours, can take these lenses even if the primary "mission" is not or only in part photography.

Obviously, this is not aimed at professional wildlife photographers. Professionals have the great whites. However, they come with a weight, volume, and price penalty that is justifiable only for professional use (including the serious amateur that rented them for that safari).
 

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,647
3,048
Personally I have my very high quality 560 @ f/8 so the little bro isn't for me but I have no problem thinking like mppix stated who might use and enjoy these lenses. Good for Canta. More of everything, low, medium and high end. I love differentiation.
 

highdesertmesa

R5
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
360
492
www.instagram.com
Good catch. It does look similar to 100-400 II foot.

RRS will probably make a nice Arca compatible foot for it and it will only be 1/2 the price of the lens. ;)

Foot, hood and 95mm filter is going to be expensive relative to the price for the 800.

The main differentiation is cost per performance.
The 100-500 will probably cost 3000$ and 500$ for the 1.4x extender (at least).
It's sharpest point won't be at 500mm and the extended may degrade that slightly as well, I don't see it being as good as the 800/11 and it may have a somewhat busier background rendering.

But we are comparing different things altogether, a long prime is always going to be much more specialised, and with a slow aperture, that takes it even further.

Actually, that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it basically forces its user to maximise its narrow operating range.
(Although I am sure most people would curse if something suddenly came closer to them, and they couldn't achieve focus or if there is not enough light to get a usable image)

I wouldn’t count on the 100-500 being weak at 500. The 100-400 II is superb at its longest focal length. On a 5DsR, I could never see any weakness at 400mm versus 100mm, at least at infinity.
 

tomri

EOS M50
Jun 4, 2014
44
15
Looks like with the RF mount we only have a choice between unreasonably underspecced and insanely expensive. f11 and f7.1 lenses, even the 85mm f2, or 8k video which nobody needs in the R5 vs only 20mpix in the R6. Maybe that makes sense for Canon (people buy twice), but it does not make sense for me.
 
Last edited:

amorse

EOS R
Jan 26, 2017
823
1,114
www.instagram.com
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:
1. Shutter speed will be to low at F11, if you crank up ISO to 6400 you might get it up to be OK. As a reference I try to stay under ISO 400 and will in a very worst situation go up to ISO 800. We all know ISO performance has stalled with the sensors. The results will be too noisy images for me. I want faster shutter speeds for birds in flight, F11 wont cut it. F5.6 is on the border of being acceptable in this regard. I have to take off the Tele extender when to gets dark or in the winter here in the PNW These lenses will be sunny day in Florida lenses as far as I'm concerned.
2. No pleasing bokeh at F11.

These are consumer offerings, not for serious wildlife photographers, Safari? I doubt the weather sealing will hold up to it, Shorebirds in a distance? The atmospheric abberations will not be helpful at a distance no matter what lens. Morning shoot at Bosque sunrise? I'm having problems getting enough shutter speed with my F4 lenses.

The only highlight there is the small size and low weight, great for travel. Anyone want to travel right now?
My biggest question is price - if they are price conscious then it makes complete sense for me. I would bet there are a number of photographers out there who want 800mm of reach, but don't have the the $13k US to make that a reality right now. If speed is the sacrifice needed to afford that magnification, I'd suspect some cost-conscious users would accept grainy images in exchange for getting that image at all.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,537
4,303
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
We have to keep the quality expectations low. Then we will be happy. Build and IQ
These remind me of the EF-S 55-250 lenses, which have very good optical quality for an incredibly low price. They won't be the kind of lens you want to stand out in the rain with or slog through the jungle, but there would be little point of that anyway with an f11 lens. A great lens for parents shooting their kids' soccer games. Unfortunately, there is no magic solution that offers lightweight and fast long telephoto lenses.