New Canon 600mm f/4 Design Uses Spotting Scope Trick

[Birdshooter]

Have you shot with the RF 100-500mm? Have you used modern noise reduction software? If you haven't, I can tell you you won't detect any noticeable image degradation at iso 800. On a sunny day for fast birds in flight, a typical exposure for me would be 1/3200s, f/7.1, iso 800. You can shoot a couple of stops of iso higher than that and still not worry about image degradation. And how often does bokeh, @Birdshooter, seriously affect your bird photos? For close-ups, you have to stop down anyway because the depth of field is so shallow at 500mm. It's only when it it gets really dark would I appreciate an f/4. Anyway, f/7.1 and even f/11 is good enough for me, but, fair enough, might not be good enough for you.

To answer your question, yes I have shot with the 100-500 and its a nice sharp lens.
Don't talk to me like I don't know what I am doing... lol
My base ISO for wildlife since the Canon Eos 1D Mark IV was 800 ISO with no modern noise reduction software like Topaz or On1 NoNoise.

My issue is with shooting at 7.1. Now you as a seasoned pro, might enjoy that aperture but I myself do not.

Oh, and I have been shooting birds for around 15 years now if that qualifies me to the club.
And I did own a 100-400 that lens was always on the long end, so dumped that for a EF 300 2.8 and a 500 f/4 which I sold when the 600 f4 II came out.

Also I probably shoot a bit earlier in the morning and later in the evening than you.

Cheers

 

[Birdshooter]

The real pros (top amateur) BIF guys do use the 600mm f/4 hand held, but they are in a different league or two from the likes of us, and all I can do is to admire their skill and images. Remarkably, Chelsea Northrup can hand hold a 600mm! I once went on a Puffin shoot with 400mm f/4 DO II on a 5DIV and got 100s of keepers as they belted past with sand eels in their beaks but the guys with 1DXs and 400mm f/2.8s on tripods got close to zero. I'd use the bare 100-500mm on the R5 if I get the opportunity to go again.

I'm, over 60 and hand hold the 600 f/4... lol

 

[AlanF]

My issue is with shooting at 7.1. Now you as a seasoned pro, might enjoy that aperture but I myself do not.

Oh, and I have been shooting birds for around 15 years now if that qualifies me to the club.

To qualify to the CR club, post some shots in the two bird threads. I am not a seasoned pro, quite the opposite, and said so:

The real pros (top amateur) BIF guys do use the 600mm f/4 hand held, but they are in a different league or two from the likes of us, and all I can do is to admire their skill and images. Remarkably, Chelsea Northrup can hand hold a 600mm!

So, it would be really nice if you as a 600mm f/4 user posted here.

 

[MiJax]

Well, the design promise lighter construction and shorter length, I think possible but who knows

I would think its definitely shorter, but I'm not sure it would be more portable and easier to handle. I wouldn't think it would be lighter without giving up something in IQ as well, because you are effectively having to do the same corrections and adding more glass to correct (mirrors). So, unless the optical formula is expected to be a lower quality, or use DO optics, I'd imagine it would be heavier. I just don't see a solid market for it. For example, think of maneuvering this thing around with a substantial top heavy balance. Its just an odd idea IMO, but I'll let them do their work and see where it goes. Personally, I don't think we'll get this type of large aperture spotting scope super tele lenses, I can see something like this leading to a new ideas that could be interesting.

 

[melgross]

I don't think I've read a single post where someone said they wanted those lenses, especially not in their current form, but I get the point that the forums aren't an accurate read of the market.

It doesn’t matter what you read, right? Very few pro photographers post on these forums. The handful who do can’t be counted on as being representative. But even some of them will want these. do people really think that Canon’s manufacture of lenses like these over many decades is done out of a lack of substantial sales and profits on them?

so yes, you get the point I’m trying to make. People in any forum aren’t usually representative of the overall market.

 

[unfocused]

...Remarkably, Chelsea Northrup can hand hold a 600mm!...

I think she is a better photographer than her husband.

 

[melgross]

Ford became the best selling car in 1906. In 1909, Henry Ford said they can have any color as long as it is black. http://oplaunch.com/blog/2015/04/30/the-truth-about-any-color-so-long-as-it-is-black/ so maybe it’s not obvious.

And?

 

[MiJax]

To answer your question, yes I have shot with the 100-500 and its a nice sharp lens.
Don't talk to me like I don't know what I am doing... lol
My base ISO for wildlife since the Canon Eos 1D Mark IV was 800 ISO with no modern noise reduction software like Topaz or On1 NoNoise.

My issue is with shooting at 7.1. Now you as a seasoned pro, might enjoy that aperture but I myself do not.

Oh, and I have been shooting birds for around 15 years now if that qualifies me to the club.
And I did own a 100-400 that lens was always on the long end, so dumped that for a EF 300 2.8 and a 500 f/4 which I sold when the 600 f4 II came out.

Also I probably shoot a bit earlier in the morning and later in the evening than you.

Cheers

I really wanted to like the 100-500L, even tried to force myself to buy it a couple of times, but the lack of speed is a big deal. That and I like to shoot in full manual mode, so I'd have to do a crazy rain dance on the dials or shoot everything at f/7.1 to keep the exposure correct. Too many compromises for me in a nearly $3,000 lens, even though it is pretty good.

 

[AlanF]

And?

... top manufacturers who dominate the market have sold what they wanted and not the customers! And, the link goes to an interesting article about marketing and product development.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think she is a better photographer than her husband.

At the risk of sounding petty, that’s a rather low bar.

 

[Blue Zurich]

At the risk of sounding petty, that’s a rather low bar.

I wonder if the Northrups ever have the Rockwells over.

 

[Deleted member 387325]

Count me among those who are pretty bitter about the slap in the face on the RF superteles. Overpriced. Out of touch. And lacking effort. At this point, seeing that new 800PF MTF chart and pricing, the Z9 and pricing, I’m shifting some budget this year to the Z mount for wildlife. I’m not really sure what Canon is thinking at this point, honestly. The pricing is out of control and it always feels like Canon is holding a little something back so they can sucker you later, giving us just enough to keep us spending. Love the R5. Love the 100-500. Will remain here and invested in the RF system, but Canon spending is officially on hold and going to Nikon for now.

 

[mxwphoto]

Count me among those who are pretty bitter about the slap in the face on the RF superteles. Overpriced. Out of touch. And lacking effort. At this point, seeing that new 800PF MTF chart and pricing, the Z9 and pricing, I’m shifting some budget this year to the Z mount for wildlife. I’m not really sure what Canon is thinking at this point, honestly. The pricing is out of control and it always feels like Canon is holding a little something back so they can sucker you later, giving us just enough to keep us spending. Love the R5. Love the 100-500. Will remain here and invested in the RF system, but Canon spending is officially on hold and going to Nikon for now.

I saw the MTF and pricing of the Nikon 800 6.3PF. For roughly the price of RF 800mm 5.6, you can buy the entire PF lineup of 300, 500, 800, add a Z9 to boot, AND have better sharpness and versatility. I have much love for Canon but it looks like this round Nikon soundly knocks out team red.

 

[Birdshooter]

A current sensor paired with the right RAW converter can produce excellent images from what used to be unthinkably high ISOs.

Also, not everyone can afford —or carry— a 600/4.

When I use a 2x TC with my 600/4, the base aperture is f/8, and I don’t find that to be a no-go at all.

Actually you should be around F11 with the 2x extender as you lose 2 stops of light with it.
I have a 2x III as well but don' t often use it, as it does soften the images.

And I know everyone can't afford a 600, but after shooting long glass with creamy bokeh and dof as thin as paper I doubt I could stomach shooting 7.1 for birds in all situations.

Canon should be looking at 5.6 lenses like Nikon's PF designs. But 7.1 can cause some ugly busy backgrounds for sure.

Cheers

 

[Birdshooter]

To qualify to the CR club, post some shots in the two bird threads. I am not a seasoned pro, quite the opposite, and said so:

So, it would be really nice if you as a 600mm f/4 user posted here.

Sorry I saw Pro under your name badge.
And I am not too interested in posting images to a photo rumor site.... lol
Do you believe in rumors....
Have a nice day, and good shooting.

 

[tarjei99]

I think there will be plenty of serious wildlife photographers, and probably a bucketload of sports photographers, who are seriously considering switching to Nikon. We can only hope that Canon can quickly respond to the 500mm and 800mm PF designs, with lenses that are equally light and compact, equally good optically AND sell at a competitive, sane price.

I think that the OM-1 with a 100-400 zoom will also be a contender. The combination will have an effective reach of up to 800mm.

Particularly for beginners this should be an excellent starting point for bird photography. It will not be bad for people with experience. However, it might not be that attractive if you have lots of long EF or RF glass.

 

[AlanF]

I

I think that the OM-1 with a 100-400 zoom will also be a contender. The combination will have an effective reach of up to 800mm.

Particularly for beginners this should be an excellent starting point for bird photography. It will not be bad for people with experience. However, it might not be that attractive if you have lots of long EF or RF glass.

It doesn't have an effective reach of 800mm - it has an effective field of view of 800mm, which is very different. Reach depends on pixel size combined with focal length (amongst other factors). The pixel pitch of the OM-1 is 3.72µ. The R5 for example has 4.38µ. So, the effective reach of 400mm on the OM-1 is 400x4.38/3.72 = 471mm on the R5. The 100-500mm on an R5 gives 6% longer reach and 100% wider fov than a 100-400mm on the OM-1, fully extended. It is important for beginners to understand this when choosing cameras and lenses.

 

[LogicExtremist]

I really hope Canon announces something that rival Nikon's 500mm and 800mm PF designs. With current ISO performance there's no need for f4 lenses.

Hmmm, the good old Canon marketing Kool-Aid about how photographers can lower their standards (shoot higher ISO, pay the same money for darker lenses) without any loss in performance because of "ISO performance". Why do people believe this marketing garbage???

It looks like many people aren't aware that as ISO increases on a digital sensor, the noise floor increases, and the dynamic range decreases.

I thought that the internet holy wars were fought over dynamic range in photography forums long ago, and everyone was incessantly ranting about how important an EV or two of difference was. Does it not matter any more now?

The new sensors may have less noise, but cranking up the ISO on an expensive Canon R5 is a good way to reduce its much lauded dynamic range down to the level of an entry level Canon RP.

The simple fact is that there is no substitute for more light, but we compromise for lens weight and price.

From https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

 

[LogicExtremist]

To qualify to the CR club, post some shots in the two bird threads. I am not a seasoned pro, quite the opposite, and said so:

So, it would be really nice if you as a 600mm f/4 user posted here.

I think this guy knows his stuff, so lets treat each other with a bit more respect here.

Search, and you shall receive! There are lots of photos on DPR in Birdshooter's posts - https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=birdshooter

 

[neuroanatomist]

Don't talk to me like I don't know what I am doing...

Oh, and I have been shooting birds for around 15 years now if that qualifies me to the club.

When I use a 2x TC with my 600/4, the base aperture is f/8, and I don’t find that to be a no-go at all.

Actually you should be around F11 with the 2x extender as you lose 2 stops of light with it.

Sorry, but it’s hard not to talk to you like you don’t know what you’re doing, when your own statements show that you don’t know what you’re doing.

Maybe try a Scott Kelby or Michael Freeman book. I hear there’s this thing called YouTube that has a tutorial or two on exposure basics.

Or shoot in P mode and let your camera handle the exposure calculations, since you seem to have trouble with them.

Two stops down from f/4 is f/8.