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

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.
I think the foot will be included. I've seen Canon product shots before where the foot was missing. Not sure why they do that but I'm fairly certain these will come with a foot and a lens hood. The lens hoods already have a product number. If the lens hood is optional like non-L lenses in the past then Canon is surely cheap.

All N. American airlines have removed all weight limits from carry-on so I've found it easier to travel with heavier gear in recent years.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,601
1,601
I think the foot will be included. I've seen Canon product shots before where the foot was missing. Not sure why they do that but I'm fairly certain these will come with a foot and a lens hood. The lens hoods already have a product number. If the lens hood is optional like non-L lenses in the past then Canon is surely cheap.

Black/plasticky + STM + no red ring = I am not counting on a hood to be included.

Tripod foot I could only speculate the same.

- A

(P.S. When is the last time we had a non-L / non-DO-branded lens come with a completely removable hood? Asking as today's trivia -- I don't know the answer myself.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joules and scyrene

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,601
1,601
I think nobody will buy these in an instant...
Or is it just me? Cause they are so new and special, I want to see reviews first...
Does some body feel me?

Price will dictate the market response.

If that 800mm is sub $1k, people will snap it up -- warts and all.

If that 800mm is $2k, sure, folks will wait for reviews. They'll want to know it sings compared to (say) dropping a TC on a 100-400 / 100-500 lens.

- A

P.S. Completely speculating on price here with f/11 being a massive wildcard for market interest.
 
Apr 17, 2017
269
309
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
I returned the RF 24-240 due to poor performance at 24-40mm, but the performance from 50-240 was exceptional. This gives me great confidence in the IQ these f/11 primes are going to produce. These are not going to be soft, low contrast lenses.

I hope Canon makes L versions that do f8, too.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,002
638
Foot, hood and 95mm filter is going to be expensive relative to the price for the 800.



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.

It is not weak per se, but there are very few zoom lenses that are strongest at the long end.
And of course the teleconverter comes on top of that.
 

RBSfphoto

I'm New Here
May 18, 2020
23
29
this is a niche lens for a very specific consumer, I think it is a smart move if priced right it will give you something that a hobbyist cant get on a smart phone and an incentive to buy a real camera. For professionals and hobbyists with interest and a budget they can continue to buy the expensive long white lenses. When might a professional want one of these? a photojournalist in a warzone could get reach with a smallish, lightish lens, a fashion shooter looking for a particular look that is different than what everybody else is shooting? I have been pro for 30 years, the image that made me the most money was shot on a funky lens from the 1930's that was only sharp in one spot mounted on my sinar 4x5 with no electronics. it is a tool the right tool for some people the wrong tool for others. To decide it is not a "good" lens because it doesn't do what you want it to do is like saying a Lamborghini is a bad car cause it is hard to parallel park
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,625
2,575
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...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
I pretty much agree with your points, but adding this to rain on the parade: I think these lenses are pretty strong indicators that the R series is not ready for DSLR quality performance in terms of speed and autofocusing. I once again refer to the Canon Europe piece on DSLR vs. mirrorless (https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/future-of-dslrs/). I think these lenses may show that Canon does not yet feel they have a mirrorless camera that can justify Big White quality RF lenses. (In fact it may be impossible to get the same performance out of a mirrorless that Big White owners are used to from DSLRs). I know that will upset the "Mirrorless is the future" crowd, but people may just have to accept that both formats are here to stay and photographers have to choose which they prefer.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,771
885
UK
www.flickr.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.
To everyone saying these lenses are too limiting to be useful, I'd ask: who is buying superzoom bridge cameras? Someone must be. These lenses' maximum apertures compare favourably to that category. We don't yet know the price - I'd expect it to be reasonable, in which case this is aimed at people who want maximum reach regardless of the drawbacks (especially paired with teleconverters); if they aren't cheap, then there must be some X factor we're not yet aware of to make them enticing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

BakaBokeh

EOS 90D
May 16, 2020
129
209
Super curious about these. I'm guessing it's going to follow the same reaction pattern as the EOS R when it was released.
-Initial uproar over the crippling specs
-Then people will get around to using them
-Hey these are pretty good after all
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tangent

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,002
638
When might a professional want one of these? a photojournalist in a warzone could get reach with a smallish, lightish lens.
The Nikon 500/5.6PF was out of stock for months because many press agencies placed big orders for it.
But the photojournalists generally use the EF 100-400 II lens (or now the RF 100-500) or the EF 70-200 2.8 III with a 2x teleconverter.
If they do use a prime, it is usually one of these three: 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
Sep 2, 2018
303
254
Kentucky, USA
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
1) Actually, I did. I noticed that the patent showed no lenses in the 40% of the lens near the body, so I posted that it's possible that it collapses to save space when put away. But I did mention that the patent did not show any IS elements, so that it's possible that the final design was different.
2) 800mm / f11 = 73mm which is needed to get all of the center beam (only) without being clipped. To avoid a severe football shaped clipped bokeh ball as you go to the sides, you need more front glass to let those side angles in and so the outermost lens needs to be appropriately bigger than 73mm, depending on how much you allow the corner bokeh to become narrow footballs.
3:5) Don't really know 'bout those.

Hope that helps. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,002
638
2) 800mm / f11 = 73mm which is needed to get all of the center beam (only) without being clipped. To avoid a severe football shaped clipped bokeh ball as you go to the sides, you need more front glass to let those side angles in and so the outermost lens needs to be appropriately bigger than 73mm, depending on how much you allow the corner bokeh to become narrow footballs.
It can be seen on the pictures that the 600/11 has a smaller front element than the filter thread, I guess the 800/11 is also similar, it probably has to do with how the DO element is mounted inside the lens.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,601
1,601
Super curious about these. I'm guessing it's going to follow the same reaction pattern as the EOS R when it was released.
-Initial uproar over the crippling specs
-Then people will get around to using them
-Hey these are pretty good after all

You might be right, but perhaps it's a matter of expectation fulfillment.

This is a bit different than a 'presumably nerfed feature set' body in which the body has a lineage it came from, a price point to uphold and a sort of 'feature-set-trajectory' we expect it to build on. In short, expectations of the next gen of a body tend to let us down when the true specs drop. (Thankfully, the R5 is shaping up to be the massive, massive exception to that rule. :))

But a modern (non-mirror) f/11 autofocusing prime has no lineage, no like-for-like predecessor (I would not compare to 2x-ing a $2k sealed beefier build 100-400L II for instance) -- so the presumed soft specs aren't really nerfing here. An f/11 prime is a deliberate attempt to make something smaller, lighter and affordable. It's a new creature with new expectations.

- A
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
247
164
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.
I don't know AlanF but I posted the calculation on dpreview a long time ago. The actual focal length of the 100-400L II at '400 mm' and MFD is just 177 mm. As you say, it's not a big problem because magnification is the main issue - but it does mean (a) you have to get closer to the subject than you would with a true 400 mm lens, and (b) background blur is proportional to focal length so subject separation is not as good. In practice that is only noticeable when the background is busy and not far behind the subject, such as a dragonfly on vegetation.
 
Last edited:

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
339
268
I think these lenses are pretty strong indicators that the R series is not ready for DSLR quality performance in terms of speed and autofocusing. I once again refer to the Canon Europe piece on DSLR vs. mirrorless (https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/future-of-dslrs/). I think these lenses may show that Canon does not yet feel they have a mirrorless camera that can justify Big White quality RF lenses. (In fact it may be impossible to get the same performance out of a mirrorless that Big White owners are used to from DSLRs). I know that will upset the "Mirrorless is the future" crowd, but people may just have to accept that both formats are here to stay and photographers have to choose which they prefer.
I don't think that's the case at all. The 1DX3's live view focus/shooting system is absolutely up to par with this, and I know countless other photojournalists using it that are 100% sold on its live view features, most of which have said the liveview focus and tracking has been superior to even the OVF. They've spent a lot of time holding the 1DX3 in front of their face to use the back LCD. There's not a person I know who has used the 1DX3's live view mode and thinks it's not up to the task, the 20 FPS silent shooting has been blowing people away and does not have any delay in the live preview or issues with tracking.

It's almost entirely certain that the R5 will at a minimum meet the 1DX3's DPAF features and will easily surpass it since it has an EVF.

The difference is, big whites are already massive. If you're going to use the 400mm f/2.8L IS III on an EOS R5, absolutely no one is going to care about the tiny addition of an adapter to use that lens. Canon will 100% sell more big white lenses by selling to both the EF and RF audience, it doesn't make sense for them to limit their supertelephoto lenses to just an RF mount yet while the flagship 1D-series remains in EF mount. I don't expect any RF white supertelephotos until the EOS-R1.

To add to that, it looks like the RF extenders may very well be able to be used with EF adapters + an EF extender, which would give even more functionality to using an EF supertelephoto on an RF mount, since you could easily stack extenders with full autofocus up to F/11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford
Nov 3, 2014
698
507
I don't know AlanF but I posted the calculation on dpreview a long time ago. The actual focal length of the 100-400L II at '400 mm' and MFD is just 173 mm. As you say, it's not a big problem because magnification is the main issue - but it does mean (a) you have to get closer to the subject than you would with a true 400 mm lens, and (b) background blur is proportional to focal length so subject separation is not as good. In practice that is only noticeable when the background is busy and not far behind the subject, such as a dragonfly on vegetation.
Sorry, didn't mean to redirect any credit away from you if you are the originator of this information. I expect AlanF, a frequent poster on this site, would have credited you if he was following your lead. My error if I neglected to do that as well.
 
Mar 23, 2020
4
0
This really looks like a line-up in the range of the Minolta AF 500mm /f8.0 Mirror reflex: Lightweight, small , still AF and - considering its limitations very flexible to carry along.