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

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Looks like with the RF mount we only have a choice between unreasonably underspecced and insanely expensive.


...because doing the sweet spot in the middle where we all probably live today won't be very successful financially. Consider: just rebuilding EF portfolio of lenses in RF will not:
  • Bring all the EF faithful over to RF (they'll just adapt EF)
  • Bring new users to the RF platform
  • Allow Canon to build new price points
  • Make much hay over what Sony and Nikon are doing
So Canon has to be a spray hitter here and play to all fields:
  • Some crazy fast / industry first stuff
  • Some crazy tiny lenses for the 'mirrorless is all about being small' crowd
  • The odd staple f/2.8 zooms to bring in the pros
  • Clever innovations to show that the company isn't resting on its laurels (adaptors with control rings / filter slots, collapsible superteles, 1:2 macro as a standard feature in affordable primes, etc.)
It's a very wise strategy, IMHO. Take any other approach -- go all in on fast, all in on small, all in on cheap, etc. -- and too much of the future market would go begging. Canon's a huge company and needs to build an army that can fight on all fronts.

- A
 

chasingrealness

RF = Requires Funding
Feb 24, 2020
112
140
Queens, NY
www.chasingrealness.com
Not a lens to render smooth backgrounds tho for wildlife then.
A wildlife photographer I follow on YouTube recently did a review and you can honestly do pretty well at f/11
Not a lens to render smooth backgrounds tho for wildlife then.
I wonder about this issue, too. There is a pretty good video about this by Duane Paton. He showed that in some circumstances you can still get nice out of focus backgrounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billct
These are going to be front heavy because the patents show no elements in the rear of the lens which means it is likely all the glass is in the movable front section. But I guess since they are fairly lightweight to begin with it won't be a huge deal.

I still would have preferred the 600 f/8 that was in the patent also in order to get better magnification and a 4.5m MFD at 840 f/11.
6m MFD is too long for me. I am often backing off to be within my 600 f/4's 4.5m MFD. 6m would work some of the time but it is a fairly big negative to me.

They are pretty slick looking in collapsed form...they are butt ugly in extended form.

They better be priced really aggresively or else I feel they are dead on the doorstep considering all the compromises.

I think the best native lens for EOS R5/R6 for birds is going to be RF 100-500 with TCs for the time being. 700/10 is a good middle ground and zoom flexibility is always a plus. Better build quality, better weather sealing, as compact as the 600DO for packing and L series IQ and AF.
Otherwise my preferred EOS R5/R6 lens for birds would be the adapted 400DOII with TCs for now.
 

tomri

EOS M50
Jun 4, 2014
44
15
...because doing the sweet spot in the middle where we all probably live today won't be very successful financially. Consider: just rebuilding EF portfolio of lenses in RF will not:
  • Bring all the EF faithful over to RF (they'll just adapt EF)
  • Bring new users to the RF platform
  • Allow Canon to build new price points
  • Make much hay over what Sony and Nikon are doing
So Canon has to be a spray hitter here and play to all fields:
  • Some crazy fast / industry first stuff
  • Some crazy tiny lenses for the 'mirrorless is all about being small' crowd
  • The odd staple f/2.8 zooms to bring in the pros
  • Clever innovations to show that the company isn't resting on its laurels (adaptors with control rings / filter slots, collapsible superteles, 1:2 macro as a standard feature in affordable primes, etc.)
It's a very wise strategy, IMHO. Take any other approach -- go all in on fast, all in on small, all in on cheap, etc. -- and too much of the future market would go begging. Canon's a huge company and needs to build an army that can fight on all fronts.

- A
The smart person leans back and waits. That person likely has more cameras than he can use at any one time, and they are all good enough or better. While he waits, one camera company after the other goes out of business. Pity.
 
Last edited:
Because he doesn’t know what long lenses do, and so comments negatively because the distance seems long to him.
No it actually is a big negative and the reason so many 800L owners sold them and bought 600II lenses when it came out. You had IQ that matched the 800L when you shot the 600 at 840. You had 1.4x better magnification and at a more reasonable 4.5m MFD. You had more supported AF points and you had a lighter lens. The 800L was special for its time but once the 600II (and now the III) came along the 800L is an inferior option IMO unless you can scoop one up for a super cheap used deal. I wonder why Canon never made a 2nd version of it....hhmmmmm...
 

chasingrealness

RF = Requires Funding
Feb 24, 2020
112
140
Queens, NY
www.chasingrealness.com
Some of the comments here suggesting that this lens will only appeal to amateurs remind me of statements in the past that smaller sensors could only appeal to amateurs. The best camera (and lens) is the one you have with you. Until now, the only people who could shoot 800mm focal lengths were the people who could afford the hefty price-tag, and those who were willing to shlep them around.

These lenses could very well start a mini-revolution in the field of telephoto shooting. It's opened the door to exponentially more people, and I think we'll all benefit from (and be impressed by) the images they create.
This is the energy this year needs more of.
 

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,365
641
There is some kind of bump on the bottom. It's too built up to be a normal panel for switches, and buttons/switches wouldn't be clocked at that location for convenient use while shooting.

Good money that's a feature for a support.

View attachment 191149

Your guess is as good as mine as to what form that takes. Could be a simple flat surface with a threaded hole, could be an arca plate (doubt it), or perhaps Canon has a card up its sleeve. That tapered ring closest to the mount likely is associated with extending the barrel at startup... but what if it is a friction ring working with the next section to the left (i.e. the tripod mounting block itself) to rotate freely? That would allow the camera body and all optical elements to rotate to portrait pretty easily. #aguycandream

- A
A foot might be an optional extra. F11 wouldn’t be enough for serious animal/bird photographers but if it were sharp it might be popular with beginners. It looks push pull so if there is no sealing it will be a dust magnet. I think it’s an interesting design choice by Canon. I’ve a 600 F4 II and it’s a whopping great lens. Not exactly something you take on holidays. A lot of airlines have a 7KG limit now for cabin luggage.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
755
1,506
...because doing the sweet spot in the middle where we all probably live today won't be very successful financially. Consider: just rebuilding EF portfolio of lenses in RF will not:
  • Bring all the EF faithful over to RF (they'll just adapt EF)
  • Bring new users to the RF platform
  • Allow Canon to build new price points
  • Make much hay over what Sony and Nikon are doing
So Canon has to be a spray hitter here and play to all fields:
  • Some crazy fast / industry first stuff
  • Some crazy tiny lenses for the 'mirrorless is all about being small' crowd
  • The odd staple f/2.8 zooms to bring in the pros
  • Clever innovations to show that the company isn't resting on its laurels (adaptors with control rings / filter slots, collapsible superteles, 1:2 macro as a standard feature in affordable primes, etc.)
It's a very wise strategy, IMHO. Take any other approach -- all in on fast, all in on small, all in on cheap -- and too much of the future market would go begging. Canon's a huge company and needs to build an army that can fight on all fronts.

- A

100%, it's a great strategy. As someone who already had all the EF glass I've ever needed, one of my #1 priorities for getting the R5 is to use unique new RF glass I can't get on EF mount. The 28-70 F/2 is a huge reason I'm excited to pre-order the R5, that adds a whole stop of light to nighttime news work and is invaluable. If they pull off a 70-135 f/2 or 14-24 f/2, that will also be under heavy consideration for me.

And then on the other end of the spectrum, in my free time I've found myself feeling less inclined to lug 20 pounds of kit with me when spending time with family. That has given me a huge incentive to get a smaller, lighter kit than my 1DX2. This is a spot where the super compact RF 70-200 shines, too. I went to NYC in February and left my long glass at home since the 1DX2 was heavy enough already, just bringing the 24-70 and 50 1.8. In an ideal RF world, I'd have been able to bring the R5, 35 1.8, 24-70, 70-200 2.8, and probably still would have been less weight and taken up less space than the 1dx2 kit I had with me. I did really miss a lot of shots from leaving the 70-200 at home, but it just takes up so much space.

This is also an area where the 600mm f/11 definitely has its place. A 70-200 was already pushing it for me, but absolutely no chance I'd ever bring any current supertelephoto in that situation of walking around all day. But a compact collapsible 600 that weighs less than the tiny RF 70-200? That's a lens that would totally be worth the slight increase in weight on a vacation if you knew there were opportunities for long shots. Like in NYC, I saw the statue of liberty at a huge distance in broad daylight and probably couldn't have even gotten a shot at 200mm, but 600mm would have definitely given a unique, awesome landscape view of it. Most vacation activities are during the day anyway, so why worry about F/11.

I'm much more fascinated by these new, unique lenses than I am any standard replacement to my EF glass. Until the R1 comes out, I'm going to need my EF glass on my 1dx2 as a secondary camera anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Daner and ahsanford

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Because he doesn’t know what long lenses do, and so comments negatively because the distance seems long to him.


I hear you, but in fairness, some folks know exactly how they work but have a unique use-case that would warrant a desire for a shorter MFD.

If you shoot (i don't know) dragonflies or something, some folks recognize that modern long macro glass is super rarely made by the major manufacturers. They have learned to work with MFD constraints of some longer primes to serve as a sort of modern day refresh to the 180L macro.

So is it reasonable to want this in a crazy long supertele? Not for me. But I'm not everyone.

- A
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC and AlanF
Nov 3, 2014
698
508
These are going to be front heavy because the patents show no elements in the rear of the lens which means it is likely all the glass is in the movable front section. But I guess since they are fairly lightweight to begin with it won't be a huge deal.
How can the front section collapse over the rear section if it's full of glass? It would seem like a significant number of the elements would have to be contained in the smaller internal rear section. I don't know for sure but I don't understand how it would work otherwise. I suppose the lenses could collapse together as well.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,087
12,758
I hear you, but in fairness, some folks know exactly how they work but have a unique use-case that would warrant a desire for a shorter MFD.

If you shoot (i don't know) dragonflies or something, some folks recognize that modern long macro glass is super rarely made by the major manufacturers. They have learned to work with MFD constraints of some longer primes to serve as a sort of modern day refresh to the 180L macro.

So it is reasonable to want this in a crazy long supertele? Not for me. But I'm not everyone.

- A
You are quite right. Unfortunately, there are those who sit in the prison of their own confines and don't appreciate there is a wider world which has different vistas. If what you do is to sit in a hide or a stand and just shoot long distances, then mfd is immaterial. If you also shoot close-up, then mfd is important.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
How can the front section collapse over the rear section if it's full of glass? It would seem like a significant number of the elements would have to be contained in the smaller internal rear section. I don't know for sure but I don't understand how it would work otherwise. I suppose the lenses could collapse together as well.


Take a look at that pic again: the inner tube is not 50% of the lens. That's not a hood at the end, that's barrel up to the front element:

1594059394146.png


Length is listed as 281mm closed and 351mm extended. So the collapsibility of this lens is not a 50-50 sort of proposition -- it just saves you about 3 inches.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
You are quite right. Unfortunately, there are those who sit in the prison of their own confines and don't realise there is a wider world which has greater vistas.


Sure, but we've all been that guy when the thing we want is not the thing Canon offers us.

Trust me, I know. :rolleyes:

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC
Nov 3, 2014
698
508
The Max magnification factors of 1.4x are comparable to the 600/800 big whites and better than the 1.2x of the 500 5.6L but many of us are accustomed to the stellar .31 that you get with the 100-400 II. 1.4 x is workable but you will definitely be sneaker zooming back if you are lucky enough to get close to some smaller creatures. You can shorten up MFD with extension tubes at the expense of infinity focus but it takes a long extension to make much of a difference at 600/800.

Thanks to some great sleuthing by AlanF it appears that the 100-400 II accomplishes the .31 max mag through an extreme reduction in actual focal length at MFD. That's sounds bad but it's a good thing in this case since mag factor is my real goal at MFD. The new 100-500 looks even better at a max mag of .33 so I expect it follows the same path as the 100-400 II which is also a good thing IMO.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Thanks to some great sleuthing by AlanF it appears that the 100-400 II accomplishes the .31 max mag through an extreme reduction in actual focal length at MFD. That's sounds bad but it's a good thing in this case since mag factor is my real goal at MFD. The new 100-500 looks even better at a max mag of .33 so I expect it follows the same path as the 100-400 II which is also a good thing IMO.


The EF 24-70 f/4L IS is 0.7x max mag. A stellar feature few talk about. However, it's no sub for a macro lens -- the working distance is a mess and the lens barrel itself can shade out the light you need.

It's all a trade off, but one I'm glad to use. I'm just amazed Canon hasn't folded that into more FF standard zooms.

- A
 
Nov 3, 2014
698
508
Take a look at that pic again: the inner tube is not 50% of the lens. That's not a hood at the end, that's barrel up to the front element:

View attachment 191152

Length is listed as 281mm closed and 351mm extended. So the collapsibility of this lens is not a 50-50 sort of proposition -- it just saves you about 3 inches.

- A
Yes, but for structural integrety I suspect you would need to leave a significant amount of the inner barrel inside the outer barrel even at max extension. Optical formulas and lens design aren't my strongest suits so I'm mostly asking rather than saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford