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

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
Aug 16, 2012
6,877
5,945
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
It's being told by someone who doesn't know what you need that you have got it wrong and you don't know
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
I use both the 500PF and the 100-400mm II. I am surprised that photojournalists use the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2 instead as I find them not much use for telephoto work. The 500PF image thread on Fred Miranda is already 186 pages long and the lens has been out for less than 2 years.
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
247
164
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.
AlanF could easily have performed the same calculation independently, owing no credit to me. I was just keen to state that I had done the calculation myself, not copied something (which might not have been correct!) from another poster. The forums are full of copied/quoted stuff which is incorrect, as I'm sure you know! Sorry if I gave a different impression.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graphic.Artifacts

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
225
182
The 800mm f/5.6 also has the same .14x magnification as well as the same 6m minimum focus distance. Do you find that you wind up using the teleconverter a lot to get more magnification?
I wonder if these lenses will be usable with the teleconverters given the aperture.
Key differences: the 800mm f/5.6 weighs 3.5 times more than this lens at 4490g and costs $12,999 new.
Yep, and the hood is almost another pound. The 800 f/5.6 is an awesome lens, but portability is not its strong point. I bought a Nikon p1000 to get similar reach with portability and will likely buy the new 800 DO for something in the middle if the IQ is good. BTW, the P1000 is equipped with an amazing lens given the constraints.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
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.

Agree on the EVF being a huge deal, esp. for those not hammering their shutter at 20 fps and those who might avail themselves of MF assist tools with adapted lenses, large aperture glass, etc. Doing that with the camera up to your eye (rather than doing the whole 'iPad photography ergonomics' of working of the LCD 12" from your face) is a really big deal.

But I don't think it's a given that the R5 will match the 1D3 DPAF features/performance:

1) Canon tends to withhold tasty AF 1-series features from 5-series cameras (which is what I consider the R5 to be)

2) The sensor res is much higher for the R5, and I wonder if whatever pixel level lifting that camera requires may (somehow) diminish its AF throughput, responsiveness, predictiveness in servo, etc.

I'm not an AF whiz and I don't want to rain on everyone's parade. As a prospective R5 buyer, I want it to rock something fierce. But it would not stun me at all if the 1DX3 was offered a few more gears (even with the mirror up) than what the R5 gets.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

usern4cr

EOS RP
Sep 2, 2018
316
260
Kentucky, USA
I think that it's great that Canon is coming out with both of these lenses. I assume the price will be very reasonable, but I'm not sure enough to guess what it'll be. It'll probably get a lot of new people to buy them which will be great for Canon, and us, whether we get one or not. :)

My concerns are these: 1) The 0.14x max magnification at 6m (for the 800mm f11) is not good for close-up shots at high magnification. I happen to really take a lot of that type of photos, so I might(?) be better off with the RF 100-500 L IS - And I do acknowledge that many here might only use this for far off shots of birds or wildlife - but that's just not me. Question: I've seen several posts in this thread that mention the minimum focus distance and max magnification of the RF 100-500, but I haven't seen this posted anywhere. So can anyone tell me what's actually posted for it (especially at 500mm)?

2) I worry that the DO element may not give as good for contrast or flare resistance as Canon people on this thread have come to expect. That's OK at a lower price, but I'm going to wait to see the IQ of these lenses before assuming they'll be great - I do hope (very much) that they'll be great and my worries will be unfounded. But I expect that they'll be 'good enough' at the price and light weight & short packed size to be quite worth buying for all of those that do buy them. :)
 
Last edited:
Nov 3, 2014
698
507
AlanF could easily have performed the same calculation independently, owing no credit to me. I was just keen to state that I had done the calculation myself, not copied something (which might not have been correct!) from another poster. The forums are full of copied/quoted stuff which is incorrect, as I'm sure you know! Sorry if I gave a different impression.
No worries. I can't recall exactly but I think Alan might have mentioned that he had seen it somewhere and then calculated it for himself as well. I think he works in a field where assigning appropriate credit is important so I was just trying to make sure I didn't create any issues by quoting him inaccurately. Thanks to both of you for your independent corroboration. :)

My goal was to just to bring the relevant Max Mag factors together so users could compare them. I probably should have just done a chart and left out the editorializing.
 
Last edited:

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,022
652
I am surprised that photojournalists use the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2 instead as I find them not much use for telephoto work. The 500PF image thread on Fred Miranda is already 186 pages long and the lens has been out for less than 2 years.
As I wrote: IF photojournalists use a prime lens (which is not that common, they use zooms) it is not a telephoto.
The 1DX II or D5 and something from the holy trinity is used for most of what's attached to the news articles, the 24-105 is also still quite popular.
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
Aug 16, 2012
6,877
5,945
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.
I like checking facts. It seems that it wasn't you who posted that the focal length is 177mm but it was lemmings51 in https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62805330 and you then replied to it in the next post https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62807586 Is that correct or had you made an earlier posting?
 
Last edited:

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
Question: I've seen several posts in this thread that mention the minimum focus distance and max magnification of the RF 100-500, but I haven't seen this posted anywhere. So can anyone tell me what's actually posted for it (especially at 500mm)?

This is all I have seen from the 100-500 spec thread:
  • Minimum focusing distance 0.9m (wide end)
  • Maximum magnification 0.33 (telephoto)
- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,615
1,627
As I wrote: IF photojournalists use a prime lens (which is not that common, they use zooms) it is not a telephoto.
The 1DX II or D5 and something from the holy trinity is used for most of what's attached to the news articles, the 24-105 is also still quite popular.

PJs' assignments run the gamut, though, don't they? Some are out on a conflict/war assignment in some faraway land, while others are buried in a highly repeatable scrum every day with elected officials.

It's hard for me to peg what they do / don't tend to use because, well, just like many of us, what they are trying to capture might be quite different than what we expect.

- A
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
Sep 2, 2018
316
260
Kentucky, USA
This is all I have seen from the 100-500 spec thread:
  • Minimum focusing distance 0.9m (wide end)
  • Maximum magnification 0.33 (telephoto)
- A
Thanks for the feedback. 0.33x max mag. at 500mm is indeed a pretty good amount. I happen to really like to take long telephoto shots at the min. focus so that I get flowers & insects in sharp focus and the OOF background is smeared so big it's just a gradient between a few colors & shades. That combination is just so beautiful (and pretty easy to do, too!) ;)

And for more 'normal' long tele use, likes landscapes, perched birds and BIF, the zoom will really come in handy! And I'll be interested in the review of using it with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters (and comparing it to taking a crop and upsampling the result?). Maybe with the converter you can get a really good shot at 700mm or 1000mm?
 
Last edited:

efmshark

EOS M50
Jan 19, 2018
40
21
Wouldn't these be past the refraction limit even at maximum aperture with the pixel density on EOS R5?
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,022
652
PJs' assignments run the gamut, though, don't they? Some are out on a conflict/war assignment in some faraway land, while others are buried in a highly repeatable scrum every day with elected officials.

It's hard for me to peg what they do / don't tend to use because, well, just like many of us, what they are trying to capture might be quite different than what we expect.

- A
The equipment is actually seems to be the same (or very similar) for both.
Mostly a 1DX II (or maybe one on each side) with one of the f/2.8 zoom lenses (or the 24-105 f/4 and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 come after that in terms of popularity).
The second most popular camera is the D5, but it is far less common. Then it is 5D III or 5D IV, etc.

They have started using Sony A9 or similar smaller mirrorless cameras in some places (some even use Leica M cameras), but it is few and far between at this stage. And yes, there are press pictures taken with smartphones as well, because timing is everything.

I guess it is brand-related, so it will be interesting to see if the EOS R5 is going to be utilised in these types of environments instead of the 1DX II
As all things considered, it is probably nowhere near as tough as a 1DX
Same thing with lenses like the RF 70-200 f/2.8, which also can't take as much beating as an EF 70-200 f/2.8 III either, there is a price to be paid for the much better portability and even better optical performance (besides the price itself).
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
247
164
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
Aug 16, 2012
6,877
5,945
March 2015 :) - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55435473

But don't worry about it Alan, it's just a calculation which anybody could do for themselves.
Thanks for the clarification. You might have missed my actual post, I actually went out and measured it for myself, from the length of a line on a chart I stuck on a wall and the length of its image on the sensor as I check manufacturers claims as well.
The geek came out and I measured the focus breathing. The minimum focus distance of mine on a 5DSR set at 400mm is 970mm, close to the specs of 975 with a magnification of 0.312x, the same really as the specs of 0.31. The calculated focal length is 178mm, instead of 400mm, at the mfd. Putting the camera (sensor) at 1.6m from target, the focal length is 228mm. (magnification 0.16x)
 
Jul 6, 2020
5
0
Is there any benefit of the 800mm f/11 over a 100-400 IS II with 2x TC, other than physical size? I’m presuming the 100-400 would win in terms of IQ due to the L glass?
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
Aug 16, 2012
6,877
5,945
Is there any benefit of the 800mm f/11 over a 100-400 IS II with 2x TC, other than physical size? I’m presuming the 100-400 would win in terms of IQ due to the L glass?
The prime should be significantly sharper as it is prime rather than a zoom combined with the fact that 2xTCs degrade images (MTF50) by about 20% or so.
 

chris_overseas

I'm New Here
Jan 3, 2015
12
15
Maybe not a problem in your world, but it is in mine. I use the same lens for birds and butterflies and dragonflies. My 100-400 and hopefully the new 100-500 as well get me down to 1m mfd and as long as 700-1000mm for reach with a TC. And I also use a 500mm PF with a mfd of 3m, and will take TCs at the same mfd. When you go out on a nature hike with one lens (and I admit that would not be a 800/5.6), you need both decent mfd as well as reach.
I agree the 800mm is a hopeless lens for insects. Lenses like the 100-400 and 70-200 are not much use for insects either in my experience, though work OK in a pinch. The 100mm macro on the other hand is perfect. For small birds that are close I agree the 800mm can be problematic and a shorter focal length (e.g. 100-400) usually ends up being a much better choice there. Sadly there is no one-size-fits all.

As for hiking with the 800mm... it certainly has some heft, but I did lug it on a 20km+ day trip in Patagonia once. Nearly killed me and I didn't get any decent shots with it that day, but if nothing else it certainly was good exercise! :D
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
Aug 16, 2012
6,877
5,945
I agree the 800mm is a hopeless lens for insects. Lenses like the 100-400 and 70-200 are not much use for insects either in my experience, though work OK in a pinch. The 100mm macro on the other hand is perfect. For small birds that are close I agree the 800mm can be problematic and a shorter focal length (e.g. 100-400) usually ends up being a much better choice there. Sadly there is no one-size-fits all.

As for hiking with the 800mm... it certainly has some heft, but I did lug it on a 20km+ day trip in Patagonia once. Nearly killed me and I didn't get any decent shots with it that day, but if nothing else it certainly was good exercise! :D
100-400mm II not much good for insects? Take a look here for a start https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/