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

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,343
22,519
social distancing friendly portraiture with MFD being around 6m? :) seriously though: airshows, even sport outdoors (good lighting conditions). could be a bit too long at times but football, soccer should be just fine.
Many a true word spoken in jest. One of my little jobs is to photo newcomers and I have told them it will be outside with a telephoto.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
Many a true word spoken in jest. One of my little jobs is to photo newcomers and I have told them it will be outside with a telephoto.

I joked the other day (somewhere else) about holding a club meeting on a ranch, one chair per acre.

(Edit: And I forgot myself, sorry--I try to supply metric on international sites. 2.5 acres makes up (roughly) one hectare. A hectare is 100x100m, an acre is 1/640th of a square mile so ten acres is 1/8 x 1/8th of a mile which happens to be roughly a 200x200m square. [it's convenient that 100 meters is about 110 years, and 110 yards actually is 1/16th of a mile.])
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,343
22,519
I joked the other day (somewhere else) about holding a club meeting on a ranch, one chair per acre.

(Edit: And I forgot myself, sorry--I try to supply metric on international sites. 2.5 acres makes up (roughly) one hectare. A hectare is 100x100m, an acre is 1/640th of a square mile so ten acres is 1/8 x 1/8th of a mile which happens to be roughly a 200x200m square. [it's convenient that 100 meters is about 110 years, and 110 yards actually is 1/16th of a mile.])
The good old days in 1935 when Jesse Owens ran 20.3s for the 220 yards (201.17m) and simultaneously broke the 200m world record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
I joked the other day (somewhere else) about holding a club meeting on a ranch, one chair per acre.

(Edit: And I forgot myself, sorry--I try to supply metric on international sites. 2.5 acres makes up (roughly) one hectare. A hectare is 100x100m, an acre is 1/640th of a square mile so ten acres is 1/8 x 1/8th of a mile which happens to be roughly a 200x200m square. [it's convenient that 100 meters is about 110 years, and 110 yards actually is 1/16th of a mile.])
So let me get this right, my lot is just over 5 acres, or 2 hectares, or 220 years [sic] ? :)
 
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
So let me get this right, my lot is just over 5 acres, or 2 hectares, or 220 years [sic] ? :)

Hah, good catch! But even if I had typed yards, you can't do that, area vs. length. It's handy of course that 100m = 110yards (with a fudge factor) because it lets you convert acres to hectares (with that same fudge factor, squared).

Of course it feels like we've been dealing with [controversy that shall remain un-named] trolls bringing it onto every thread on this board for about 110 years, so maybe that's why I slipped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
HI, wanted to share my first tests with the new RF 800mm F11 lens in case they are useful to people considering this or the 600mm?

Test carried yesterday. All 3 lenses mounted on Canon EOS RP. Gitzo tripod, IS turned off. 2 second timer. 10 metre distance to the Queen (for me a typical perched bird distance).

Just to add, I am a bird photographer and my current preferred set-up is the Canon 600mm F4 II, usually with a 1.4 III. Main bodies 5D Mark IV and 5DSr (it is great for wildlife!).

I mainly wanted to see how the new Canon lens performed against the 100-400 II (with extender) and was pleasantly surprised. To me it looks to have resolved significantly more detail. I know that my 100-400 and 600 are sharp copies - and the mirrorless body removes any questions over lens micro-adjustment.

Bought this and the RP for a light weight alternative to lugging round the 600 F4.

Time will tell how this lens performs in the real world - with that F11 limitatiion. Didn't want to invest in a more suitable mirrorless body (than the RP) for bird photography if the lens itself wasn't any good, but might have to save my pennies now!


800mmF11comp.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Chris, having Her Majesty as a "bird" is simply beyond the pale. It's pistols at dawn, socially distanced of course. If it stops raining and I can find a tenner, I'll take a photo with both a 1.4xTCIII and 2xTCIII on a 100-400mm II to compare with your leftmost image.
Hi Alan, no insult intended to Her Majesty, good luck with the rain stopping. I am still aiming to try and get some real shots this weekend, but as it is a Bank Holiday weekend in England, don't hold out too much hope.
 
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
HI, wanted to share my first tests with the new RF 800mm F11 lens in case they are useful to people considering this or the 600mm?

Test carried yesterday. All 3 lenses mounted on Canon EOS RP. Gitzo tripod, IS turned off. 2 second timer. 10 metre distance to the Queen (for me a typical perched bird distance).

Just to add, I am a bird photographer and my current preferred set-up is the Canon 600mm F4 II, usually with a 1.4 III. Main bodies 5D Mark IV and 5DSr (it is great for wildlife!).

I mainly wanted to see how the new Canon lens performed against the 100-400 II (with extender) and was pleasantly surprised. To me it looks to have resolved significantly more detail. I know that my 100-400 and 600 are sharp copies - and the mirrorless body removes any questions over lens micro-adjustment.

Bought this and the RP for a light weight alternative to lugging round the 600 F4.

Time will tell how this lens performs in the real world - with that F11 limitatiion. Didn't want to invest in a more suitable mirrorless body (than the RP) for bird photography if the lens itself wasn't any good, but might have to save my pennies now!


View attachment 192503
Thanks for your post, Chris! - it's really helpful to see the images side by side at the same size.
I thinks it's quite clear that the resolution of the 800mm f11 is roughly in-between that of the other 2 choices. But the contrast might(?) be lower on the 800 f11 than the others.

I have a couple questions (if you don't mind):
* Why does the 800 f11 image seem (to me) darker? Is it possible it needed more exposure, or is the contrast suffering across the image from the DO lens edges (or both)?
* The # of pixels in the height of each image must be somewhat different, due to different lens magnification (560mm vs 800mm vs 840mm) and sensor pixel size. Did you have to up-sample two of them to match the other? (and which one had the most pixel height?). If you up-sampled the 800 f11 image to fit the (un-resampled) 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC then it would be interesting to see the identical test, but this time down-sample the 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC image to the size of the (un-resampled) 800 11 one - I'd be curious if that made any noticeable visual improvement in the 800 f11 relative to the 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC?

Another post you might want to consider, is to compare (like above) the images from the 800 f11 versus the 800 f11 + RF 1.4xTC. Show one picture with the 800 up-sampled to fit the 800 + 1.4xTC and a separate picture with the 800 + 1.4xTC down-sampled to fit the 800. That would let me (and others) know what the benefit is to use the RF 1.4xTC on the 800 f11 lens is (versus just not using it).
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,343
22,519
Thanks for your post, Chris! - it's really helpful to see the images side by side at the same size.
I thinks it's quite clear that the resolution of the 800mm f11 is roughly in-between that of the other 2 choices. But the contrast might(?) be lower on the 800 f11 than the others.

I have a couple questions (if you don't mind):
* Why does the 800 f11 image seem (to me) darker? Is it possible it needed more exposure, or is the contrast suffering across the image from the DO lens edges (or both)?
* The # of pixels in the height of each image must be somewhat different, due to different lens magnification (560mm vs 800mm vs 840mm) and sensor pixel size. Did you have to up-sample two of them to match the other? (and which one had the most pixel height?). If you up-sampled the 800 f11 image to fit the (un-resampled) 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC then it would be interesting to see the identical test, but this time down-sample the 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC image to the size of the (un-resampled) 800 11 one - I'd be curious if that made any noticeable visual improvement in the 800 f11 relative to the 600 f4 II + 1.4xTC?

Another post you might want to consider, is to compare (like above) the images from the 800 f11 versus the 800 f11 + RF 1.4xTC. Show one picture with the 800 up-sampled to fit the 800 + 1.4xTC and a separate picture with the 800 + 1.4xTC down-sampled to fit the 800. That would let me (and others) know what the benefit is to use the RF 1.4xTC on the 800 f11 lens is (versus just not using it).
The relative merits of using the 1.4xTC depend on the number of megapixels on the sensor. On the high resolution R5, it will be close to useless as f/11 onwards is far into diffraction limitation. On the lower resolution RP that Chris used or the R6, you might see some small benefit, depending on how good the TC is and the compatibility of the lens. I calculated the theoretical effects here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/
 
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
The relative merits of using the 1.4xTC depend on the number of megapixels on the sensor. On the high resolution R5, it will be close to useless as f/11 onwards is far into diffraction limitation. On the lower resolution RP that Chris used or the R6, you might see some small benefit, depending on how good the TC is and the compatibility of the lens. I calculated the theoretical effects here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/
In your previous post you mention you expect the 100-500 ...-f7.1 + 1.4TC to outresolve the 800mm f11 on the R5. It would be nice to see an actual side-by-side comparison to make sure of this (both for resolution and for contrast). It'd also be good to have confirmation to everyone considering what to buy with the R5 (whether to buy the 800 f11 or just add the RF 1.4TC to the 100-500).
 
Upvote 0
In your previous post you mention you expect the 100-500 ...-f7.1 + 1.4TC to outresolve the 800mm f11 on the R5. It would be nice to see an actual side-by-side comparison to make sure of this (both for resolution and for contrast). It'd also be good to have confirmation to everyone considering what to buy with the R5 (whether to buy the 800 f11 or just add the RF 1.4TC to the 100-500).
For some, the large price difference between those two choices may outweigh resolution differences. For those with the wherewithal, maybe not.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,343
22,519
In your previous post you mention you expect the 100-500 ...-f7.1 + 1.4TC to outresolve the 800mm f11 on the R5. It would be nice to see an actual side-by-side comparison to make sure of this (both for resolution and for contrast). It'd also be good to have confirmation to everyone considering what to buy with the R5 (whether to buy the 800 f11 or just add the RF 1.4TC to the 100-500).
Small differences in resolution may be well down the list of priorities when making choices. As BeenThere notes, price could be a major consideration, whereas versatility of a zoom vs prime, minimum focal distance, size etc are of overriding importance to others. I made a mistake when writing adding the 1.4xTC to the 100-500 outresolves the 800 f/11. I've modified it to:
  • The 800mm f/11 outresolves the 100-500mm f/7.1 on the R5 and R6, but adding the 1.4xTC to the zoom brings it closer to the 800mm prime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
Small differences in resolution may be well down the list of priorities when making choices. As BeenThere notes, price could be a major consideration, whereas versatility of a zoom vs prime, minimum focal distance, size etc are of overriding importance to others. I made a mistake when writing adding the 1.4xTC to the 100-500 outresolves the 800 f/11. I've modified it to:
  • The 800mm f/11 outresolves the 100-500mm f/7.1 on the R5 and R6, but adding the 1.4xTC to the zoom brings it closer to the 800mm prime.
Thanks for the clarification. I already have the R5 and RF 800mm f11. I'm going to get the RF 100-500. At the moment, I'm leaning towards *not* getting any RF TC for either of them and instead using them as-is and cropping the result if needed. A major (or huge to me) benefit of this is the framing of shots is much easier with the wider view (especially for BIF). Besides making framing easier, if I ever wanted a bit more image off a particular edge than the TC combo allowed, the as-is (non-TC combo) version gives me a ton of extra image to crop into when needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,343
22,519
Thanks for the clarification. I already have the R5 and RF 800mm f11. I'm going to get the RF 100-500. At the moment, I'm leaning towards *not* getting any RF TC for either of them and instead using them as-is and cropping the result if needed. A major (or huge to me) benefit of this is the framing of shots is much easier with the wider view (especially for BIF). Besides making framing easier, if I ever wanted a bit more image off a particular edge than the TC combo allowed, the as-is (non-TC combo) version gives me a ton of extra image to crop into when needed.
I am of like mind about wider field of view for BIF. I used to use 800mm/f8 on the 5DIV for slow moving far away big birds, and it was fine. But, 400 or 500mm on FF is so much easier for me, and you can catch them as they come much closer, which is when you get the best shots. I can't resist posting this puffin with sandeels, I tracked him with the 400mm on the 5DIV coming at me and got him close up. But, for Covid, I would have been back there this year. I am looking forward to eyeAF on the R5 for these shots when birds get close2B4A9310-DxO_puffin+sandeels_flying_face_on_ss.jpg.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
I am of like mind about wider field of view for BIF. I used to use 800mm/f8 on the 5DIV for slow moving far away big birds, and it was fine. But, 400 or 500mm on FF is so much easier for me, and you can catch them as they come much closer, which is when you get the best shots. I can't resist posting this puffin with sandeels, I tracked him with the 400mm on the 5DIV coming at me and got him close up. But, for Covid, I would have been back there this year. I am looking forward to eyeAF on the R5 for these shots when birds get closeView attachment 192507.

If I may ask Alan, where was this? You can decline without offending!

I did Puffins off the Northumberland coast when I was living in the UK but with mixed success. Had great fun shooting grey seals at a hidden location in Scotland (bet I've lost the google map for that one, ha ha).
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,343
22,519
If I may ask Alan, where was this? You can decline without offending!

I did Puffins off the Northumberland coast when I was living in the UK but with mixed success. Had great fun shooting grey seals at a hidden location in Scotland (bet I've lost the google map for that one, ha ha).
Stu, I have very few secrets! It was the inner Farne Island, off that very coast. I had the 5DIV and 400mm DO II and no problem tracking these little fast flyers. There were others with very large whites on tripods who couldn't move their lenses fast enough and were complaining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Stu, I have very few secrets! It was the inner Farne Island, off that very coast. I had the 5DIV and 400mm DO II and no problem tracking these little fast flyers. There were others with very large whites on tripods who couldn't move their lenses fast enough and were complaining.

I don’t recall which one I went to, but thanks for the guidance Alan, appreciated. I will return with a smaller lens then next time!
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,343
22,519
I don’t recall which one I went to, but thanks for the guidance Alan, appreciated. I will return with a smaller lens then next time!
I had no problem panning them with the 5DIV set to the central 9 points. They are very fast but travel in absolutely straight lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0