I *routinely* shoot my Sigma 150-600C at f/7.1 on my 7D Mark II. That's approximately equivalent to f/11.4 on full-frame. I use it mostly for airshows and such, in good light.Who are these lenses for?
And if you have these you also know how annoying it is to swap the converters on and off on the run. The issue with the converters is theyre a pita to muck around with in the bush, or any times the elements are playing up, and they come at the expense of IQ and AF. I love my 100-400 ii but it simply isnt practical to swap the TC on and off during the day, nor is the noticable IQ and AF worth keeping it on all day. Further, there is nowhere to "step up" in gear between the 100-400 and an 800 monster without grabbings a 400 and putting a TC on it, and thats not a solution based on the above.One more thing to point out - if you have the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, you already have available, with a teleconverter, 560 mm at f/8, and 800 at f/11 using the 1.4x or 2X respectively. Same with the 400/5.6L, but without IS.
And, if you own a 7DII you already have 640mm at f5.6 with the 100-400. If you don't mind the single center autofocus point you have 896mm at f8 with the 1.4x converter. Buy a Sigma or Tamron 600 zoom and you have 960mm at f6.3. But, these lenses will probably be smaller and lighter if that's important. I don't think it will be to me because, as you mentioned, unless you are shooting in the bright sun, the f11 will be a nonstarter.One more thing to point out - if you have the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, you already have available, with a teleconverter, 560 mm at f/8, and 800 at f/11 using the 1.4x or 2X respectively. Same with the 400/5.6L, but without IS.
Keep in mind that 99.9% of photos today live on people's social media feeds. Generally shared on a cell phone or maybe an iPad at best. As someone else mentioned, there will be a lot of well-heeled soccer parents and grandparents who never shoot in anything but bright sunlight who will find these lenses fine.Maybe I'm looking at this from the stand point of trying to make good photography and not just photography for the sake of a past time. In that line of thinking... sure, I could see some people really enjoying the lens. But from the stand point of a photog that understands light and the requirements needed to make a shot, I feel like this offering will fall short. Again, I'd take a 400L 5.6 and a 2x over this mythical unicorn even if it is optically perfect (I'd have a killer 400 at f/5.6 and the flexibility to go to 560 @ f/8.0 and 800@ f/11.0 to boot). For me, the suggested lens' strengths don't override its potential weaknesses. Maybe Canon will prove me wrong.
Having a 600 f/4 or a 800 f/5.6 that costs more than 12000 new is different than something that is f/11 and would cost between 1000-2000, isn't it? And don't forget the differences in size and weight.
filtering in Lightroom among 50,000+ pics 500mm-1200mm:
Here's something to consider: the biggest cause of the falling camera market is because of the use of cellphone cameras. What's one thing cellpbone cameras can't compete with simply because of physics? Zoom. Long, cheap zoom is a huge advantage of buying a camera, and 600mm even at f/11 could be a super exciting consumer lens. Especially considering the size.
I have Canon’s 70-300mm IS DO zoom lens. It stays in a drawer now and hasn’t been used in years. It is a short lens at the 70mm setting but heavy for its size and the image quality isn’t anything special. Plus at $1399 (Samy’s current price) it’s pretty expensive and has the weird, ringed out of focus bokeh which is a DO signature. I think a lot of people will buy the new lenses for the reasons given by others but then quite a few of them will be disappointed by the f11 max aperture once they try to use them in less than ideal lighting conditions.