Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC

[dallasdave22]

And still no 100-400 mark 2

 

[tron]

And still no 100-400 mark 2

+1 :-\

 

[Click]

And still no 100-400 mark 2

+1 :-\

+2

 

[CarlTN]

Why would anyone be enthusiastic about an f/5.6 zoom lens with a built in TC, especially one that is still large but limited to 300mm at the wide end? F/5.6 is dark enough...an f/8 lens is limited in its usefulness, even if by some miracle future pro AF sensors will work with all their points at f/8. It's still a very dark lens...perhaps useful on ski slopes during bright sunlight.

What should get built instead (or at least...first), is a smaller and more affordable, light weight prime lens, but with the TC built in. How about say, a 330mm f/3.5 DO (with some major technological breakthroughs in resolution), that weighs 3 pounds or less, and has an option to switch out two different TC's that then mount internally? Maybe a 1.4x and a 1.7x? Canon could still charge $3500 to $5000 for it, and lots more people could justify buying it. It would be highly portable, hand-holdable, and usable for long hikes, or a long day shooting at an event, etc. I say it would be more useful to more people, than a $10,000+ 300-600mm f/5.6 zoom (which is basically a very similar sized lens to the 200-400 f/4...which itself also seems more useful than a 300-600 f/5.6).

Most importantly, it would be a light bucket by comparison, at f/3.5 and 330mm...yet weigh half as much, and cost half as much! Then of course its AF speed and accuracy, could easily exceed that of all but perhaps the 300mm f/2.8 ii...I suppose if it did all this Canon would charge closer to $6000, but it might be worth it! It could be nicknamed the "mini mighty whitey"!! Hahaha...

I just have to think the AF speed freaks, would look down their noses at a 300-600 f/5.6 zoom.

What's next, a 10mm to 100mm fisheye zoom?? :

I think a 300-600/5.6 TC would primarily be a pro sports/olympics lens. In that case, it would probably almost always be used with a 1D X, where usable ISO tops 12800, and for newspaper and magazine print, is quite viable up to 25600. I'd also point out that the 1D X is faster than any other camera at f/8 AF. It certainly isn't f/4 fast, but it isn't all that much slower than f/5.6 AF on a 5D III or any lesser model.

Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?

On a 1D IV, yes. On a 5D III or 1D X, no...it is the center point plus expansion, which is actually fairly large. It isn't a huge problem, though. If you want flexible composition in non-tracking scenarios, you can always use rear-button AF, lock onto your subject, stop AF, recompose, and take the shot (which can be done in a fraction of a second with some skill.)

For tracking subjects, it's always been the recommendation that you use the center points anyway, as they are the most precise and accurate. So overall, unless you have a particular style of shooting where you frequently use the outer AF points to do tracking with extremely long supertelephoto focal lengths...you should be fine.

It's amusing that you're advocating "focus-recompose", when all you've done is criticize the technique thus far. Also it seems like you're arguing for something that you likely won't ever have a vested interest in (this particular lens).

I mean, to advocate servo tracking in the center of an image, when you and at least one other notable were so happy to say it should not be done, because you're not a real photographer if you don't use all those vast number of AF points with their large array...kind of trying to have your cake and eat it to, from the point of criticizing those who've done it, aren't you? Implying you have the skill to do it, but others don't...kind of arrogant.

Again, I state the 300-600 f/5.6 is a lens nobody in the pro sports world needs for stills photography. They already have the same focal length covered when using the internal TC with the 200-400. And F/8 AF is going to be sluggish at best, and by your own admission, will require focus-recompose even with the 1DX. Perhaps it would be ideal for videography though, and that's something I've not seriously considered until just today. But for stills photography with fast paced subjects, I don't see this lens as delivering good value for money at all. They need to just make a non-L, STM lens for video use, rather than another mega-dollar L lens for stills with such a dark aperture.

 

[Loswr]

Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?

Yes, and to me at least, that makes focusing quite a challenge on action oriented shooting. It is OK to shoot a musk ox grassing, but hopeless on something running or flying. I hardly ever use the 2x extender on the 600 f4 because of that.

American Bittern in flight, shot handheld with the 1D X, 600mm f/4L IS II + 2xIII, 1/1600 s, f/8, ISO 3200.

 

[CarlTN]

Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?

Yes, and to me at least, that makes focusing quite a challenge on action oriented shooting. It is OK to shoot a musk ox grassing, but hopeless on something running or flying. I hardly ever use the 2x extender on the 600 f4 because of that.

American Bittern in flight, shot handheld with the 1D X, 600mm f/4L IS II + 2xIII, 1/1600 s, f/8, ISO 3200.

Kind of soft, distant and uninteresting. It's not worth using the equipment it took to get the shot, in my opinion. You don't mention how much cropping there is, if any. If it's heavily cropped, then that's at least something...especially at 1200mm. You probably should have set for a bit faster shutter speed? The panning IS is only helping in one axis...as you know.

 

[Loswr]

Kind of soft, distant and uninteresting. It's not worth using the equipment it took to get the shot, in my opinion. You don't mention how much cropping there is, if any. If it's heavily cropped, then that's at least something...especially at 1200mm. You probably should have set for a bit faster shutter speed? The panning IS is only helping in one axis...as you know.

The point was that it's possible to shoot BIF handheld with the 600 II + 2xIII. Hit rate was ~50%, due to the difficulty of keeping the center + 4 AF points on the bird, but it can be done.

The bittern shot is cropped by about a third,...it was a gray, ugly day at the end of October, 2012. This shot from 40 minutes later that day (also with the 600 II + 2xIII) shows the rain that started falling on us, being blown nearly sideways by the strong winds…it was the outskirts of Hurricane Sandy.

 

[Eldar]

The point was that it's possible to shoot BIF handheld with the 600 II + 2xIII. Hit rate was ~50%, due to the difficulty of keeping the center + 4 AF points on the bird, but it can be done.

The bittern shot is cropped by about a third,...it was a gray, ugly day at the end of October, 2012. This shot from 40 minutes later that day (also with the 600 II + 2xIII) shows the rain that started falling on us, being blown nearly sideways by the strong winds…it was the outskirts of Hurricane Sandy.

I agree that it is possible, but AF is too limited. Keeper rate is low and 1200mm is difficult on anything that moves, regardless of AF functionality.

 

[CarlTN]

Kind of soft, distant and uninteresting. It's not worth using the equipment it took to get the shot, in my opinion. You don't mention how much cropping there is, if any. If it's heavily cropped, then that's at least something...especially at 1200mm. You probably should have set for a bit faster shutter speed? The panning IS is only helping in one axis...as you know.

The point was that it's possible to shoot BIF handheld with the 600 II + 2xIII. Hit rate was ~50%, due to the difficulty of keeping the center + 4 AF points on the bird, but it can be done.

The bittern shot is cropped by about a third,...it was a gray, ugly day at the end of October, 2012. This shot from 40 minutes later that day (also with the 600 II + 2xIII) shows the rain that started falling on us, being blown nearly sideways by the strong winds…it was the outskirts of Hurricane Sandy.

Interesting. So you weren't in servo mode for the bittern shot? Seems like you wouldn't need it, depending on if you had been following it along the perpendicular path to your position, for very long.

My point wasn't that AF could not be done. But a 50% hit rate, would be ridiculed in any other context. Even my 6D has a much better than 50% hit rate with an f/5.6 lens in similar light...yet you're happy to slam its AF weaknesses anyway, because it's not 80 to 100% hit rate, and thus "not professional". Yet you're advocating using such megapriced equipment in a situation where a pro would never use it for critical work, due to such a low hitrate. So again, the 300-600 being intended for professionals, I really must ask why? Sure the IQ would be better for it (without its extender) than with the 200-400 with its extender switched in, but how much better? Enough for those pros to buy both lenses? Or is this a matter of spending "government" (as in "free public untraceable unaccountable") funds on the equipment?

 

[Loswr]

My point wasn't that AF could not be done. But a 50% hit rate, would be ridiculed in any other context. Even my 6D has a much better than 50% hit rate with an f/5.6 lens in similar light...yet you're happy to slam its AF weaknesses anyway, because it's not 80 to 100% hit rate, and thus "not professional". Yet you're advocating using such megapriced equipment in a situation where a pro would never use it for critical work, due to such a low hitrate.

Well, it depends on how you define hit rate. I suppose you could say the hit rate for the bittern shots was 100% - but 50% of the time it was perfectly focused on the bird, and the other 50% of the time it was perfectly focused on the background, when the AF point drifted off the bird. That's not the camera's AF weakness, it's my inability to handhold the 12 pound, 26" long setup perfectly stable. The fact that there were any shots in focus at all is a testament to the speed of the AF (even with the TC on, it was able to achieve focus fast) and the frame rate of the 1D X (which gave me 3-4 frames for each of the fractions of seconds I had the AF points over the bird). Not that I had a 6D along for comparison, but if I had, well…the 6D doesn't even support AF with an f/8 combo now, does it?

This was far from a critical situation, I was walking along a path to the beach, and happened to look to the side and see the bittern flying by at a distance…too much distance, actually, and I knew it at the time. I raised the camera that was hanging from a Blackrapid strap, and took a couple of bursts.

 

[KyleSTL]

I raised the camera [1Dx and 600mm f/4L IS II USM with 2.0x III TC] that was hanging from a Blackrapid strap, and took a couple of bursts.

I want to see a picture of that (rig hanging on a BR), it sounds rather epic. Please tell me you have a DR-2 and had your EOS M and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM on the other side.

 

[jrista]

The point was that it's possible to shoot BIF handheld with the 600 II + 2xIII. Hit rate was ~50%, due to the difficulty of keeping the center + 4 AF points on the bird, but it can be done.

The bittern shot is cropped by about a third,...it was a gray, ugly day at the end of October, 2012. This shot from 40 minutes later that day (also with the 600 II + 2xIII) shows the rain that started falling on us, being blown nearly sideways by the strong winds…it was the outskirts of Hurricane Sandy.

I agree that it is possible, but AF is too limited. Keeper rate is low and 1200mm is difficult on anything that moves, regardless of AF functionality.

You guys must not pay much attention to professional bird photographers. Many of them use the 600II + 2xTC III. Some of them rarely ever use anything else! Most of them used the 800/5.6 before, many never removed their 1.4x TC's from it. One of the primary reasons professional bird photographers buy 1D series is for the f/8 AF, because they use it CONSTANTLY.

Keep in mind, the 1D officially supports f/8 AF. It isn't like the makeshift f/8 AF you can get with a Kenko slapped onto a 400mm f/5.6 on a 7D, where your luck is basically a roll of the dice, and AF performance is excruciating. Nor is it even like the 5D III, which supports f/8 AF, but isn't as fast as the 1D series. I am guessing, at best, most of you calling f/8 AF slow have only used the 5D III. Try rending a 1D IV sometime, or if you know a friend with one, see if you can borrow it. When it is officially supported, especially these days with support for expansion mode (where a total of five central AF points are used in the 1D X/5D III), it is fast, accurate, and very usable.

Now, granted, f/8 lenses aren't ideal for tracking birds in flight. Usually, if a bird is flying towards you or angled across your field of view, f/8 lenses, which are usually over 800mm in length, are just too long...you need something wider anyway to compose properly and leave a little room for some of that necessary cropping and straitening. So it isn't like anyone expects f/8 AF to be used to track one of the most complex and difficult subjects that you can track. That's the reason f/4 supertelephotos exist...LOT of light, FAST af...you track BIF with a 500mm or 600mm f/4. The f/8 is most frequently used for perching birds, shorebirds, waders like herons, waterfowl, distant wildlife, etc. where you don't have to bother tracking...you just point, focus, and shoot. Both the 5D III and 1D X are MORE than capable of doing that with an f/8 lens.

 

[CarlTN]

The point was that it's possible to shoot BIF handheld with the 600 II + 2xIII. Hit rate was ~50%, due to the difficulty of keeping the center + 4 AF points on the bird, but it can be done.

The bittern shot is cropped by about a third,...it was a gray, ugly day at the end of October, 2012. This shot from 40 minutes later that day (also with the 600 II + 2xIII) shows the rain that started falling on us, being blown nearly sideways by the strong winds…it was the outskirts of Hurricane Sandy.

I agree that it is possible, but AF is too limited. Keeper rate is low and 1200mm is difficult on anything that moves, regardless of AF functionality.

You guys must not pay much attention to professional bird photographers. Many of them use the 600II + 2xTC III. Some of them rarely ever use anything else! Most of them used the 800/5.6 before, many never removed their 1.4x TC's from it. One of the primary reasons professional bird photographers buy 1D series is for the f/8 AF, because they use it CONSTANTLY.

Keep in mind, the 1D officially supports f/8 AF. It isn't like the makeshift f/8 AF you can get with a Kenko slapped onto a 400mm f/5.6 on a 7D, where your luck is basically a roll of the dice, and AF performance is excruciating. Nor is it even like the 5D III, which supports f/8 AF, but isn't as fast as the 1D series. I am guessing, at best, most of you calling f/8 AF slow have only used the 5D III. Try rending a 1D IV sometime, or if you know a friend with one, see if you can borrow it. When it is officially supported, especially these days with support for expansion mode (where a total of five central AF points are used in the 1D X/5D III), it is fast, accurate, and very usable.

Now, granted, f/8 lenses aren't ideal for tracking birds in flight. Usually, if a bird is flying towards you or angled across your field of view, f/8 lenses, which are usually over 800mm in length, are just too long...you need something wider anyway to compose properly and leave a little room for some of that necessary cropping and straitening. So it isn't like anyone expects f/8 AF to be used to track one of the most complex and difficult subjects that you can track. That's the reason f/4 supertelephotos exist...LOT of light, FAST af...you track BIF with a 500mm or 600mm f/4. The f/8 is most frequently used for perching birds, shorebirds, waders like herons, waterfowl, distant wildlife, etc. where you don't have to bother tracking...you just point, focus, and shoot. Both the 5D III and 1D X are MORE than capable of doing that with an f/8 lens.

I rented the 1D4 last year, and used the 2x ii TC on a 300mm f/4. I even posted some of the shots on here. It worked, but it was slow to AF...and as you said, it only worked with the center point, where the 1DX and 5D3 use a cluster. Certainly that lens combo was very far from the top tier for AF speed or sharpness, but that was what I had on hand to employ the f/8 AF at the time.

I presume you're saying the 300-600 f/5.6 lens, would be intended for birders? In any case, certainly the 600 f/4 with TC's will make a better birding setup, as you have said.

I suppose future AF sensors and techniques will make f/8 AF even faster with a better hitrate. Still I guess I am annoyed that Canon would make yet another mega lens that is an even darker aperture zoom, rather than trying to fill in holes in their lineup with something more akin to an f/3.5 lens like I mentioned a couple of pages back. If they do wind up putting this 300-600 in production, then there might be a decent market for it. They would know better than me.

 

[CarlTN]

My point wasn't that AF could not be done. But a 50% hit rate, would be ridiculed in any other context. Even my 6D has a much better than 50% hit rate with an f/5.6 lens in similar light...yet you're happy to slam its AF weaknesses anyway, because it's not 80 to 100% hit rate, and thus "not professional". Yet you're advocating using such megapriced equipment in a situation where a pro would never use it for critical work, due to such a low hitrate.

Well, it depends on how you define hit rate. I suppose you could say the hit rate for the bittern shots was 100% - but 50% of the time it was perfectly focused on the bird, and the other 50% of the time it was perfectly focused on the background, when the AF point drifted off the bird. That's not the camera's AF weakness, it's my inability to handhold the 12 pound, 26" long setup perfectly stable. The fact that there were any shots in focus at all is a testament to the speed of the AF (even with the TC on, it was able to achieve focus fast) and the frame rate of the 1D X (which gave me 3-4 frames for each of the fractions of seconds I had the AF points over the bird). Not that I had a 6D along for comparison, but if I had, well…the 6D doesn't even support AF with an f/8 combo now, does it?

This was far from a critical situation, I was walking along a path to the beach, and happened to look to the side and see the bittern flying by at a distance…too much distance, actually, and I knew it at the time. I raised the camera that was hanging from a Blackrapid strap, and took a couple of bursts.

“It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is…” Hahaha…

You still didn’t tell me if you were in servo mode for the bittern shot. I assume you were. 12 pounds...so this was the series 1 600mm lens?

“I suppose you could say the hit rate for the bittern shots was 100% - but 50% of the time it was perfectly focused on the bird, and the other 50% of the time it was perfectly focused on the background, when the AF point drifted off the bird.”

Um, that’s effectively a 50% hit rate…and if you're saying it was only 1 AF point, why would that be? I thought you said the 1DX used a central cluster, in which case it should have been easier to keep the cluster over the bird, than if it was a single point.

“Not that I had a 6D along for comparison, but if I had, well…the 6D doesn't even support AF with an f/8 combo now, does it?”

Never said it did, now did I? And you know I wasn’t referring to a 6D’s AF ability at F/8…so let’s not get silly. It’s me who owns and enjoys the 6D, and it’s you who doesn’t like that. I don’t mind that you have a 1DX, or that you will likely pre-order the new 2014 1 series as quickly as you’re able to…if not several of them.

“I raised the camera that was hanging from a Blackrapid strap, and took a couple of bursts.”

Fine by me. My point was, it’s not a picture that is worth the cost it took to get it. (No doubt you have others that are, but that’s not what I’m referring to here). I’ve seen a bit of your photography, and much of it is not bad at all (don’t let this go to your head though!). But this one is unremarkable as a photograph. It’s simply a shot that you filed away in a folder for the sake of posting it to show that you were able to do it handheld at f/8 at 1200mm, yada yada…it’s not really all that mind-blowing that you did it, though. You simply held the lens, pointed, and shot…Now if it had been children running through dark tents in the foreground, and you were able to servo focus on them and capture what each was thinking, while also following the bittern all the way back to its nest…that would have been a more interesting shot.

Again though, if that was the series 1 600mm lens, and it was in servo mode, then even a 50% hit rate is not what I would call bad, especially if it's a continuous 12 fps.

My point in criticizing the AF speed, had more to do with sports. In particular people who shoot action that is moving rapidly toward or away from the camera. I don't see this 300-600 zoom lens being able to do that well enough to justify its price. It seems to me that the 200-400 only AF's barely adequately enough for professional sports...rather its advantage is of course that it's a zoom.

 

[Eldar]

The point was that it's possible to shoot BIF handheld with the 600 II + 2xIII. Hit rate was ~50%, due to the difficulty of keeping the center + 4 AF points on the bird, but it can be done.

The bittern shot is cropped by about a third,...it was a gray, ugly day at the end of October, 2012. This shot from 40 minutes later that day (also with the 600 II + 2xIII) shows the rain that started falling on us, being blown nearly sideways by the strong winds…it was the outskirts of Hurricane Sandy.

I agree that it is possible, but AF is too limited. Keeper rate is low and 1200mm is difficult on anything that moves, regardless of AF functionality.

You guys must not pay much attention to professional bird photographers. Many of them use the 600II + 2xTC III. Some of them rarely ever use anything else! Most of them used the 800/5.6 before, many never removed their 1.4x TC's from it. One of the primary reasons professional bird photographers buy 1D series is for the f/8 AF, because they use it CONSTANTLY.

Keep in mind, the 1D officially supports f/8 AF. It isn't like the makeshift f/8 AF you can get with a Kenko slapped onto a 400mm f/5.6 on a 7D, where your luck is basically a roll of the dice, and AF performance is excruciating. Nor is it even like the 5D III, which supports f/8 AF, but isn't as fast as the 1D series. I am guessing, at best, most of you calling f/8 AF slow have only used the 5D III. Try rending a 1D IV sometime, or if you know a friend with one, see if you can borrow it. When it is officially supported, especially these days with support for expansion mode (where a total of five central AF points are used in the 1D X/5D III), it is fast, accurate, and very usable.

Now, granted, f/8 lenses aren't ideal for tracking birds in flight. Usually, if a bird is flying towards you or angled across your field of view, f/8 lenses, which are usually over 800mm in length, are just too long...you need something wider anyway to compose properly and leave a little room for some of that necessary cropping and straitening. So it isn't like anyone expects f/8 AF to be used to track one of the most complex and difficult subjects that you can track. That's the reason f/4 supertelephotos exist...LOT of light, FAST af...you track BIF with a 500mm or 600mm f/4. The f/8 is most frequently used for perching birds, shorebirds, waders like herons, waterfowl, distant wildlife, etc. where you don't have to bother tracking...you just point, focus, and shoot. Both the 5D III and 1D X are MORE than capable of doing that with an f/8 lens.

I can only repeat myself. It is doable, but keeper rate is low and it is very difficult to use on anything that moves. I don´t know if you have any practical experience with a 600 f4L/2x extender combo. I do. And for fairly stationary subjects, like a bird on a branch, grassing mammals etc. it works. For anything that moves, it doesn´t work well enough. I rather use the 600/1.4x combo and crop.

 

[jrista]

The point was that it's possible to shoot BIF handheld with the 600 II + 2xIII. Hit rate was ~50%, due to the difficulty of keeping the center + 4 AF points on the bird, but it can be done.

The bittern shot is cropped by about a third,...it was a gray, ugly day at the end of October, 2012. This shot from 40 minutes later that day (also with the 600 II + 2xIII) shows the rain that started falling on us, being blown nearly sideways by the strong winds…it was the outskirts of Hurricane Sandy.

I agree that it is possible, but AF is too limited. Keeper rate is low and 1200mm is difficult on anything that moves, regardless of AF functionality.

You guys must not pay much attention to professional bird photographers. Many of them use the 600II + 2xTC III. Some of them rarely ever use anything else! Most of them used the 800/5.6 before, many never removed their 1.4x TC's from it. One of the primary reasons professional bird photographers buy 1D series is for the f/8 AF, because they use it CONSTANTLY.

Keep in mind, the 1D officially supports f/8 AF. It isn't like the makeshift f/8 AF you can get with a Kenko slapped onto a 400mm f/5.6 on a 7D, where your luck is basically a roll of the dice, and AF performance is excruciating. Nor is it even like the 5D III, which supports f/8 AF, but isn't as fast as the 1D series. I am guessing, at best, most of you calling f/8 AF slow have only used the 5D III. Try rending a 1D IV sometime, or if you know a friend with one, see if you can borrow it. When it is officially supported, especially these days with support for expansion mode (where a total of five central AF points are used in the 1D X/5D III), it is fast, accurate, and very usable.

Now, granted, f/8 lenses aren't ideal for tracking birds in flight. Usually, if a bird is flying towards you or angled across your field of view, f/8 lenses, which are usually over 800mm in length, are just too long...you need something wider anyway to compose properly and leave a little room for some of that necessary cropping and straitening. So it isn't like anyone expects f/8 AF to be used to track one of the most complex and difficult subjects that you can track. That's the reason f/4 supertelephotos exist...LOT of light, FAST af...you track BIF with a 500mm or 600mm f/4. The f/8 is most frequently used for perching birds, shorebirds, waders like herons, waterfowl, distant wildlife, etc. where you don't have to bother tracking...you just point, focus, and shoot. Both the 5D III and 1D X are MORE than capable of doing that with an f/8 lens.

I rented the 1D4 last year, and used the 2x ii TC on a 300mm f/4. I even posted some of the shots on here. It worked, but it was slow to AF...and as you said, it only worked with the center point, where the 1DX and 5D3 use a cluster. Certainly that lens combo was very far from the top tier for AF speed or sharpness, but that was what I had on hand to employ the f/8 AF at the time.

I presume you're saying the 300-600 f/5.6 lens, would be intended for birders? In any case, certainly the 600 f/4 with TC's will make a better birding setup, as you have said.

I suppose future AF sensors and techniques will make f/8 AF even faster with a better hitrate. Still I guess I am annoyed that Canon would make yet another mega lens that is an even darker aperture zoom, rather than trying to fill in holes in their lineup with something more akin to an f/3.5 lens like I mentioned a couple of pages back. If they do wind up putting this 300-600 in production, then there might be a decent market for it. They would know better than me.

One thing I will add is that lens choice DOES play a role. The AF motors in lenses are NOT all equal. A $10k+ lens is going to have a far superior AF drive and motor, and are explicitly designed to utilize more power, than something like the 300/4. So sure, a 300/4+2x is definitely going to focus slower, but that is as much lens limitation as aperture limitation. The 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 mark IIs and 800/5.6 all contain the most advanced AF drive systems, and all of them actually require more power in order to operate that fast. To my knowledge, only 1D series bodies are capable of driving them properly...and it may be that only the 1D X itself is actually able to supply enough power to drive them at the highest power level.

I would be willing to bet that a 1D IV with a 300/2.8 or 600/4 + 2x TC performs remarkably better than the 300/4+2x.

I can only repeat myself. It is doable, but keeper rate is low and it is very difficult to use on anything that moves. I don´t know if you have any practical experience with a 600 f4L/2x extender combo. I do. And for fairly stationary subjects, like a bird on a branch, grassing mammals etc. it works. For anything that moves, it doesn´t work well enough. I rather use the 600/1.4x combo and crop.

I do have experience with the 600/4+2x on a 1D IV. I have not had the luxury of trying it on a 1D X, however from my understanding of the device specification for each, f/8 AF on the 1D X EXPLICITLY with Mark II superteles should be faster since the 1D X was designed to supply the necessary power, and has the necessary processing to back up the AF and metering unit for performant f/8 operation.

Again, as I mentioned before, I don't know many people who would even WANT to use a lens 800mm or longer for BIF. Unless the birds are sufficiently far away, but in that case you often have atmospheric effects that eliminate any benefit of using a longer lens vs. getting up and moving closer to the action. Personally, I only do BIF with 600mm f/4, and even that, on occasion, results in birds that are much too large in the frame (although that is 7D...with a FF, 600/4 would be PERFECT! I couldn't imagine using the 600/4+1.4x for BIF.)

So, given the use cases, I still don't see a problem with f/8 AF. As I said before, plenty of professional and otherwise highly skilled bird photographers use f/8 lenses all the time for shorebirds, perching birds, etc. and the results are phenomenal. I never hear any of them complaining about how slow the AF is, with either a 1D X or 5D III (the latter of which is just as common.)

 

[Eldar]

I never hear any of them complaining about how slow the AF is, with either a 1D X or 5D III (the latter of which is just as common.)

I agree with that. AF speed is not the issue. The problem, with such a focal length, is to be able to position the One focus point you have, where you want it. If the subject is stationary or near stationary, it works. And the IQ is still great, provided the air is clear enough.

 

[CarlTN]

Jrista, I only mentioned the 300 f/4 because that’s what I used at the time, not because I think it’s comparable to the mega lenses. I realize it uses different motors, etc...however those motors have more mass to move.

As for the power supply, well it comes from those three 18650 batteries that make up the pack in the 1 series, operating at over 11 volts…so of course that power source can drive motors better. However, that was the power source I was using at that time with the 1D4.

“I would be willing to bet that a 1D IV with a 300/2.8 or 600/4 + 2x TC performs remarkably better than the 300/4+2x.”

I would be willing to bet the same, along with a bet that the sun will rise tomorrow…haha. Never said the contrary.

I certainly agree on the atmospheric effects of birds at a distance, especially at or above 800mm.
Certainly birders who shoot in bright conditions aren’t going to complain about a 300-600 f/5.6 lens with a 1.4x TC built in. But are they the primary customer for such a lens? If so, are there enough of them to justify building the lens? It seems to me, the primary use for all the big whites, is professional sports photography. So again, that use case is what I am questioning. Perhaps this is meant to be a pro snow skiing lens, in which case I guess it's not a coincidence that there is an upcoming winter Olympics.

 

[jrista]

I certainly agree on the atmospheric effects of birds at a distance, especially at or above 800mm.
Certainly birders who shoot in bright conditions aren’t going to complain about a 300-600 f/5.6 lens with a 1.4x TC built in. But are they the primary customer for such a lens? If so, are there enough of them to justify building the lens? It seems to me, the primary use for all the big whites, is professional sports photography. So again, that use case is what I am questioning. Perhaps this is meant to be a pro snow skiing lens, in which case I guess it's not a coincidence that there is an upcoming winter Olympics.

I think that birders are probably primary customers of the 500/4 and 600/4, along with the 1.4x and 2x TCs. (And, I would bet, if Canon ever made a 1.7x TC, birders would be ALL OVER it! )

I think the 300-600/5.6 TC would be a sports/olympics lens. I can see it being awesome for Olympic ski games. Maybe a wildlifers lens...but in my own experience, I find myself liking ~400mm better for wildlife than 600mm or higher. The times when I need the longest focal lengths possible are small shorebirds and small songbirds wading or perching or otherwise doing non-flight activity. For flight activity, I'd much prefer the 300/2.8, along with a 1.4x TC at times. That would basically be my ideal BIF and wildlife lens.

It may also be a lens that is catered slightly more to DSLR cinematographers. Since Canon's DPAF can focus at f/11, and high ISO is getting so clean on Canon cameras now, it could very well be that this is some kind of stopgap supertele cine+stills lens. Since future video photographers won't necessarily need a focus puller, with DPAF doing the job for them, the aperture wouldn't actually matter (and from the couple people I know who do a lot of video, they HATE narrow DOF! They are happy to take deeper DOF so long as their backgrounds keep that nice blurry cinematic look...which should be a synch with a telephoto lens.)

 

[CarlTN]

I certainly agree on the atmospheric effects of birds at a distance, especially at or above 800mm.
Certainly birders who shoot in bright conditions aren’t going to complain about a 300-600 f/5.6 lens with a 1.4x TC built in. But are they the primary customer for such a lens? If so, are there enough of them to justify building the lens? It seems to me, the primary use for all the big whites, is professional sports photography. So again, that use case is what I am questioning. Perhaps this is meant to be a pro snow skiing lens, in which case I guess it's not a coincidence that there is an upcoming winter Olympics.

I think that birders are probably primary customers of the 500/4 and 600/4, along with the 1.4x and 2x TCs. (And, I would bet, if Canon ever made a 1.7x TC, birders would be ALL OVER it! )

I think the 300-600/5.6 TC would be a sports/olympics lens. I can see it being awesome for Olympic ski games. Maybe a wildlifers lens...but in my own experience, I find myself liking ~400mm better for wildlife than 600mm or higher. The times when I need the longest focal lengths possible are small shorebirds and small songbirds wading or perching or otherwise doing non-flight activity. For flight activity, I'd much prefer the 300/2.8, along with a 1.4x TC at times. That would basically be my ideal BIF and wildlife lens.

It may also be a lens that is catered slightly more to DSLR cinematographers. Since Canon's DPAF can focus at f/11, and high ISO is getting so clean on Canon cameras now, it could very well be that this is some kind of stopgap supertele cine+stills lens. Since future video photographers won't necessarily need a focus puller, with DPAF doing the job for them, the aperture wouldn't actually matter (and from the couple people I know who do a lot of video, they HATE narrow DOF! They are happy to take deeper DOF so long as their backgrounds keep that nice blurry cinematic look...which should be a synch with a telephoto lens.)

Yes I would be all over a 1.7x TC too. But I guess since Nikon has had one for a decade, Canon needs to wait another couple of decades before they bring one to market. You know, just to make sure they get it right!

You seem to think like I do, a bit. I had also mentioned video usage a couple of posts ago for this 300-600.

So for stills shooters, why not embrace my idea of a 330mm f/3.5 DO prime lens, with a switchable internal TC that can be exchanged. They could make a 1.55x, a 1.7x, 2.4x, and so on. I’ve long thought 1.55x is the ideal TC magnifier, rather than 1.4x. This lens could sell for under $6000, rather than $30k. It wouldn’t even have to be platinum plated! They could charge their extra $500 for each of the insert-able TC’s…but it would come with one of them installed.

Yes, I mean…with video and cinema…most every movie and tv show you see, has quite deep focus. It’s what the producers and the audience seem to want, much of the time. Sure shallow DOF can look awesome, but as I read somewhere…how many movies have you seen where the majority of scenes were shot in shallow DOF? None…maybe a few scenes done by wedding videographers.