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

[highdesertmesa]

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II - Full Format Review / Test Report - Analysis

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II - Full Format Review / Test Report

www.opticallimits.com

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.

The EF 100-400 II @ 400mm on the 5DsR was so sharp at infinity it made my eyes bleed, even handheld. If the 100-500 IQ @ 500 matches or exceeds the 100-400 II IQ at 400mm, then it's going to rock. Given the performance thus far of the RF L lenses, I see no reason why this would not be the case.

 

[geffy]

I doubt the 600 will be much bettet than my tamron 600 zoom at f11

 

[mppix]

...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 would add that the "middle ground" is already there - EF lensws work perfectly fine on RF cams

 

[SteveC]

I would add that the "middle ground" is already there - EF lensws work perfectly fine on RF cams

With--oh, the humanity!!!!--an adapter, of course. (Yes, I am being sarcastic.)

 

[unfocused]

I doubt the 600 will be much better than my tamron 600 zoom at f11

True. But it will weigh half as much.

 

[dcm]

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.

Reminds me a bit of the Mount Adapter EF-EOSM (left) that comes with a separate foot (center) that screws into the adapter with a couple of prongs to prevent twisting to give a larger surface to mount to an arca plate (right).

And when fully assembled.

This gives a little bit of clearance needed for the body and lenses, like the other standard Canon feet provide. The foot could easily be included with the lens like it is with the adapter. I don't use it much any more since since the only EF lenses I tend to adapte have their own feet.

Or maybe they eliminated the foot and you can attach the plate directly.

 

[geffy]

True. But it will weigh half as much.

true but its already paid for and any purchase nowadays is difficult to justify, the R was bought for peanuts

 

[m1mm1m]

Not at all....the 100-400 & 1.4x vs the 600 F4 is no contest. The 600 gives professional-tier images. The 100-400 without a TC gives very good images, with some degradation with a 1.4. There's nothing wrong with the 100-400 but to say that the lenses announced here are going to be within even shouting distance of the 600 f4 (or whatever the R variant becomes) is just not realistic.

I own the 600 F4 II and the 100-400 II..... IQ is indistinguishable without the TC.....

 

[ahsanford]

I doubt the 600 will be much bettet than my tamron 600 zoom at f11

Depends on what you value. Compared to the Tamron, this new 600 prime will:

• Be 60-70mm shorter in your bag
• Be 600g lighter
• Not require an EF adaptor
• Presumably more reliably focus with first party AF (a very small issue at these apertures, but still)
• Use a more common 82mm filter
• Might be truer to actual 600mm FL (I believe TDP said the G2 150-600 seemed more like 570mm than a true 600mm)

...but I'm not offering that laundry list as a vote of 'the Canon is better'. It can't zoom, after all. Just saying YMMV depending on what you value.

- A

 

[geffy]

" Depends on what you value. Compared to the Tamron, this new 600 prime will........"
i have an rx10 with the 600 equivalent and it is sharp but my old 600 l lens never leaves the house, seriously the sony is shockingly good and takes most of my outdoors travelling, there is the problem of distant detail and sensor size so the L wall always win but might not be there as its a behemoth, the tamron might be there but the sony seems to always deliver and its f4 though the bokeh is f11

 

[Jethro]

I'll be in the 'wait and read the detailed reviews' crowd, but assuming the price is 'reasonable', I'm thinking an IS lens like one of these would fit very nicely on my EOS R.

 

[arbitrage]

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.

Except for the fact that my A9 from 2017 leaves the 1DXIII in its rear view mirror when it comes to challenging AF situations. Even the 1DXIII LV leaves the 1DXIII OVF AF in the dust. MILCs have all the potential to vastly outperform the best DSLRs. Only the Nikon D5/D6 can hold a candle to the A9 and 1DXIII LV.

Sure Canon may still not have their s**t together with MILC AF but the 1DXIII LV seems to dispute that. I don't think these f/11 lenses have any indication of AF performance....in fact the fact that they have a f/11 lens compatible with a 2xTC for an f/22 lens that supposedly can still AF actually shows how much better MILC AF can be.

 

[geffy]

The EF 100-400 II @ 400mm on the 5DsR was so sharp at infinity it made my eyes bleed, even handheld. If the 100-500 IQ @ 500 matches or exceeds the 100-400 II IQ at 400mm, then it's going to rock. Given the performance thus far of the RF L lenses, I see no reason why this would not be the case.

I think this may be the sleeper lens after the amazement at the little blacks in the long run the 500 L zoom may prove just to be better to own as the others disappoint after the wow moment

 

[tarjei99]

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...

If my memory serves me right the 800 was the first of the "II" family of long teles. Since there were no existing 800mm, it didn't get the "II" and that makes it look older than it is.

 

[tarjei99]

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.

I think Canon are hedging their bets. They can talk nice about the mirrorless being the future. They are protecting their EF lenses as well in case the market does not shift as expected.

I don't think the big whites sell as well as people like to think. I suspect that the xxx-600mm zooms have largely taken over. 200-500mm for Nikon. So I expect that it takes time to recuperate the cost of these lenses.

In the beginner segment, where is the cameras that will take over the xxxD and xxD spots? I think the beginners and low end so far think that mirrorless does not look professional. And they want a camera that looks professional and is reasonably priced.

 

[Hector1970]

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!

I admire you hiking with an 800mm. I couldn’t even contemplate it. I have a 600mm F4 II and it’s a bit like an aircraft carrier. I need to bring a sturdy tripod and gimbal head. You end up going with so much weight. I have hand held it in safari but it takes its toll.
I don’t mind the 100-400 at all for insects. Of course not as good as a dedicated macro but not bad. It’s a fairly flexible lens. I would have liked Canon to do a good 150-600mm EF lens but the EF era is gone.

 

[AlanF]

" Depends on what you value. Compared to the Tamron, this new 600 prime will........"
i have an rx10 with the 600 equivalent and it is sharp but my old 600 l lens never leaves the house, seriously the sony is shockingly good and takes most of my outdoors travelling, there is the problem of distant detail and sensor size so the L wall always win but might not be there as its a behemoth, the tamron might be there but the sony seems to always deliver and its f4 though the bokeh is f11

The RX10iv is an amazing piece of kit. Mine is tack sharp from 24-600mm, and the AF is remarkable. I use it for casual travel or instead of a shorter telephoto lens on trips to accompany my DSLRs plus lightweight telephotos. To put noise levels, aperture and iso into perspective, the Riv entance pupil diameter (f/4 for 220mm focal length) is 55mm, the same as that for the 600mm f/11, and so lets in the same amount of light to cover its sensor as does the 600mm on FF. They have the same demands for iso!

 

[amorse]

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.

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. Maybe because Canon sees consumers moving up-market to full frame due to competition of smart phones at the lower end, or Canon sees an opportunity to squeeze out smaller sensor manufacturers in m4/3 or aps-c, or maybe they just want to get out of producing smaller sensors and need a way to keep price sensitive buyers in the Canon ecosystem.

Whatever Canon's reasons, making massive magnification accessible on full frame at a (assumed) budget friendly price point seems to be targeting people who want big magnification but can't afford 5 figure lenses. I'd bet there are plenty of people out there in that situation.

Obviously this argument goes right out the window if these aren't price conscious lenses!

Ok, if the prices listed here are legit, then I definitely think the objective in making these was to make magnification cheap on full frame, and aperture was the real cost:

https://www.canonnews.com/the-canon...es-have-leaked-supertelephotos-for-the-masses

 

[ahsanford]

Price just was pushed out: £699 for the 600mm and £929 for the 800mm.

No dollar figure yet, but if you assume the normal windage between GBP and USD -- these will be very affordable lenses. Wow.

- A

 

[Joules]

For those in disbelief, the source:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280424189313331200

Canon in attack mode is quite a sight to behold.