Sooooo, f/11 you say? What’s Canon up to with these upcoming supertelephoto lenses?

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
503
493
I took along the 300 2.8L II and it produced incredibly sharp images with great color and contrast, no distortion. I recently got the most recent 100-400L for an upcoming (I hope, if COVID doesn't prevent it), and haven't been as impressed with the above. What is your opinion on that? May I have a not great copy of the lens?
Thx for your imput.

sek
The 300 f/2.8L II is one of the sharpest lenses in existence. Unlikely any zoom will match its performance, but then it doesn't zoom, either. The 100-400L II is a very good lens and quite sharp for a zoom, but it will never be in the same league with the 300 f/32.8 L II.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,682
11,688
I took along the 300 2.8L II and it produced incredibly sharp images with great color and contrast, no distortion. I recently got the most recent 100-400L for an upcoming (I hope, if COVID doesn't prevent it), and haven't been as impressed with the above. What is your opinion on that? May I have a not great copy of the lens?
Thx for your imput.

sek
I used to have a 300/2.8 II and it was a cracker of a lens. My copies of the 100-400mm II weren't far off it, and The Digital Pictures tests show the same at 300mm, 400/420 and 560/600mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
What body are you using the 100-400mm II on? Have you AFMAdjusted it?
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,497
5,723
That's funny because I thought The Digital Picture samples illustrated that the naked 300 was markedly 'better' than the 100-400 at 300mm and f5.6.

 

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
511
335
I've been thinking about this since I read the original post earlier today. Can't come up with a single place where I'd find either one of these lenses useful. Other than not costing $13K, I can't imagine any benefit.
"Other than not costing $13k" And you sorta write that as an afterthought. Being that all EF lenses are usable with the R system as originally was the concept of the flange size. Those long lenses are still useable. However they are huge in comparison. Until Canon continues to add to the family I would use my EF long lens.
 

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
511
335
I have used my 100-400 with a 2X TC, and that is f/11 equivalent at 800mm. Obviously, it is for brightly lit objects that are not moving. With the 5 stop IS on the EOS R, it would be possible to use a relatively slow shutter speed and keep ISO's down as long as there is little or no motion. It might even be possible to get some clear BIF shots by sortng thru 8K video frames.

If the lens is reasonably priced, and smaller and light, I'd at least be interested as useful for having a long telephoto with me while traveling.

Canon has a lot of photographers on their staff who try and use prototype bodies and lenses in many different situations, that is why they seldom get it wrong for the targeted customer.

That slider thingy bar on the back of my R is a example of a big miss.
If not for the 5D target shooter, Canon might have had time to perfect that slider. I am still kinda upset we dont get the backlit joystick however from the 1dx2. That would have been sweet.
 

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
511
335
Canon most likely has more than one lens designer. More than likely these lenses were not designed by their prime lens designer. I wouldn't make such a big deal about it. Use the EF lens until the faster higher end version is released. We sorta got spoiled with first few primes.
 

scottkinfw

Wildlife photography is my passion
CR Pro
I used to have a 300/2.8 II and it was a cracker of a lens. My copies of the 100-400mm II weren't far off it, and The Digital Pictures tests show the same at 300mm, 400/420 and 560/600mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
What body are you using the 100-400mm II on? Have you AFMAdjusted it?
1DXII and yes calibrated it! Thank you so much for the links- I appreciate the time and work you put in.
sek
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,682
11,688
That's funny because I thought The Digital Picture samples illustrated that the naked 300 was markedly 'better' than the 100-400 at 300mm and f5.6.

I didn’t buy the 300mm f/2.8 II to shoot at f/5.6! That beautiful hunk of a lens like all my telephotos was used wide open for the majority of the time. Have you used both of these telephotos? Most of the time I used the 300/2.8 with a 1.4 or 2xTC. The lens was the best way of getting a hand holdable longer telephoto with good IS until the 400 DO II came along.
 
Nov 3, 2014
698
508
I spent an hour or so tonight parsing the metadata on esposure, ISO and aperture of many of my favorite shots with my 600 f4 both as a bare lens and with converters and I have to say f11 is going to be right on the edge IMO. If I used ISO 3200 as an upper-limit; I found f/11 would have required a compromised shutter speed on many of my photos. An extra stop of noise, ISO 6400, brought almost everything into the envelope. I'd rarely have been getting an ISO under 800. An EV that yields an ISO of 800 at f4 (my target) is going to be ISO 6400 at f11. That's not to say that ISO 6400 is never acceptable, but I don't know that I'd want all of my photos to be taken that way. I'm not saying that you aren't going to be able to get some nice photos with these lenses but I think they are going to be more of a challenge then some folks want to believe. They allow 1/4th of the light transmission of Canon's slowest existing telephoto. That's not a small thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,497
5,723
I didn’t buy the 300mm f/2.8 II to shoot at f/5.6! That beautiful hunk of a lens like all my telephotos was used wide open for the majority of the time. Have you used both of these telephotos? Most of the time I used the 300/2.8 with a 1.4 or 2xTC. The lens was the best way of getting a hand holdable longer telephoto with good IS until the 400 DO II came along.
Neither did I, but I see little point in comparing an f2.8 lens to an f5.6 lens at f2.8 when you are comparing IQ, primarily resolution. It is important to know the faster lens doesn’t fall apart wider open, and we all know it doesn’t, but I feel comparing like for like has far more value, after all, if you need f2.8 it doesn’t matter how good the f5.6 lens is it isn‘t an option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,682
11,688
Neither did I, but I see little point in comparing an f2.8 lens to an f5.6 lens at f2.8 when you are comparing IQ, primarily resolution. It is important to know the faster lens doesn’t fall apart wider open, and we all know it doesn’t, but I feel comparing like for like has far more value, after all, if you need f2.8 it doesn’t matter how good the f5.6 lens is it isn‘t an option.
Scott just wants to know whether his 100-400mm II is a bad copy because it compared badly with his 300mm f.2.8 mm II. I told him my experience and gave him 3 links to where he can compare his with two copies on a website. And that’s all my posts are Intended to be about. And he thanked me for my efforts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556 and Joules

Act444

EOS R
May 4, 2011
1,134
209
I don't particularly like this trend of slower lenses we are seeing from Canon. But I could make use of the 800 f/11. I shot my 400DOII/2x at f/8 more than at 560 or 400. I did all sorts of birding including BIF with that combo. I shoot at f/9 all the time with my Sony 200-600/1.4TC and that is for things like swallows in flight. For more static perched birds it is easy to shoot down at 1/200-1/400 with these newer IS/IBIS systems and most of the time (with a few insurance shots) you will get good results without motion blur.

I don't see much point in the 600/11....a 600/8 (which is also in the patent) would have made more sense so you could have versatility with the 1.4TC to go up to 840/11 if you wanted to but also have f/8 at 600 if 600 is enough. I've always felt the 600/4 lenses made more sense than 800/5.6 lenses for this same type of reasoning.

I agree. Depending on price level and IQ, the 800/11 *MAY* be worth a look. I've been looking for a reasonably-priced, sharp supertele for YEARS now. That said, given the relative newness of the R system I may wait and see if a faster f8 version is on the horizon that may be in the 3K range and still manageable weight-wise.

A 600/8 would have made more sense to me as well...who knows, maybe one is coming later, and this f11 version is supposedly a "budget kit". Ideally I'd like to see a 600 5.6 DO - probably good balance between price and weight.
 

Joepatbob

EOS M50
Sep 5, 2019
27
38
could the f/11 be a fooling tactic? maybe these will be really fast lenses but they want to keep it a secret until closer to release
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,696
1,655
could the f/11 be a fooling tactic? maybe these will be really fast lenses but they want to keep it a secret until closer to release
No, the web page information and manuals are already printed and distributed. The Certification agencies have approved them (thats public).

I'm thinking of dumping my 100-400mm L II if they are lighter and cheaper. I have a difficult time with the weight from that lens as I get older and weaker, that means it does not get used very much. Same for my 70-200mmL, its miserable getting old! I do occasionally need that f/2.8, but not a lot.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,682
11,688
No, the web page information and manuals are already printed and distributed. The Certification agencies have approved them (thats public).

I'm thinking of dumping my 100-400mm L II if they are lighter and cheaper. I have a difficult time with the weight from that lens as I get older and weaker, that means it does not get used very much. Same for my 70-200mmL, its miserable getting old! I do occasionally need that f/2.8, but not a lot.
"Dumping" is not quite the right word to be used with the 100-400mm II. How about: "It's time I should be passing on my magnificent but increasingly lightly used 100-400mm II to a younger generation who can take full advantage of its contrast and resolution".
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: Rule556 and SteveC

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
450
389
In the absence of actually being able to try these new RF super teles, I cannot imagine a practical use for F11 in my photography, so will closely follow the hands on reviews, once they are released. Hopefully, someone will show me why I need them. Meanwhile, I would be hard pressed to pre-order either of them. However, I must note that, given market conditions, it's encouraging to note that Canon is obviously committed to the R series mirrorless line, as they continue to develop new RF glass.