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

Lee Jay

EOS 7D Mark II
Sep 22, 2011
2,206
143
Who are these lenses for?
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.

If I need low-light performance I switch to the 70-200/2.8. Different situations have different needs and f/11 is perfectly useful. Heck my telescope is native f/10 (cat) and my old one was f/15 (mak). Nothing wrong with that.
 

Thcwub

I'm New Here
Mar 6, 2019
10
26
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 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.

A f11 800 would be a godsent for the likes of me. Casual day shooters who dont have 10000 bucks to drop on a lens but want to step up into some long reach.

Theyd also be a very good option for local sports photography during the day where blinding speed isnt needed but reach would be great
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

JoeDavid

Unimpressed
Feb 23, 2012
200
60
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

MiJax

EOS M50
Mar 30, 2016
41
45
California
www.flickr.com
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.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,974
3,239
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
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.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,974
3,239
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lo lite
Jan 11, 2020
4
10
An F11 apperature allows for some very affordable and lightweight lenses. With such a simple design under $1000 and around 1kg seems possible. This could make them a good alternative for beginners if the image quality is good and the new cameras have better low light performance. The low weight would be also helpful when traveling and hiking, although I would have liked F8 better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee and Pape

Toglife_Anthony

Hit the G.A.S. & pump the brakes at the same time!
Apr 2, 2020
26
28
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.

Cost is irrelevant if you can't get the shots you want. ;-)

I'm not arguing the cost/weight savings, hence me saying I'm not the targeted audience. I am curious how many people out there have a desire for this type of lens though, in comparison to those wanting something faster, even if more expensive.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,974
3,239
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I'm not complaining (much) because I feel Canon makes enough stuff that I want. If they make some things I don't, it's not hurting me any. But, I am a bit frustrated as a 7D fan. If there is a market for these lenses, I sure feel like there would have been a market for 7DIII and a 150-500mm f5.6 zoom.
 

Bonich

EOS M50
Apr 29, 2019
48
39
filtering in Lightroom among 50,000+ pics 500mm-1200mm:
- There is quite a lot waterfowl with F10, F11
- There is a lot of panning of cars F11 to F16 (Bright sunshine, "long" exposure)
- For Birders the chance of a relatively light and handy long FF setup doing walk, observe and shoot accidentally. This seems to be a remarkable seized market nearly not penetrated by the camera industry up to now beside some outated bridge cameras.
 

Flyingskiguy

I'm New Here
Dec 31, 2014
22
39
For the work I do, these lenses are a godsend.

I film/photograph skiing in wilderness/backcountry settings. I have to haul all of my gear in myself. Snowfields and snowy mountains on a clear day are astonishingly bright and I even at f/11 these lenses will require filtration to achieve appropriate shutter speeds for video.

Having lightweight compact super tele options will be a game changer in this part of the industry. Combined with the R5, I will have super tele, stabilized, AF tracking slo mo video capability. This will allow me alone to function in a role that previously would have required 3+ people.
 
May 28, 2020
5
8
I love my sigma 150-500, but I don't take it hiking. Being able to pack my RP, a prime like the 40mm pancake and a super-light and compact telephoto all in my shoulder bag sounds awesome to me.
 

VORON

EF 8-15mm F/4.0 L
Nov 23, 2017
23
25
35
St. Petersburg, Russia
There's nothing 'horrible' in F11 lens on full frame camera. It's going to be a direct competitor to popular 1" ultrazoom cameras, which have roughly the same equivalent aperture and focal length. Well, probably overall dimensions are going to be quite similar!
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene and lo lite

cellomaster27

Capture the moment!
Jun 3, 2013
361
52
San Jose - CA
I mean, sure, diversify the product line. Can't be bad. But I don't think that the new RF mount was designed solely to accommodate future F11 lenses. Like the F2 28-70mm and the 1.2 primes, I would like to and probably will own more of these. Also, use my existing super zooms with the EF-RF adapter. It would be difficult to imagine the usability of F11 super tele lenses for me and the cons even with a cheaper* lens from canon. So far, there's been overwhelming reasons why we shell out $$$, sell kidneys, do wonderful things for wives, create secret bank accounts to buy expensive glass with large apertures. (I'm being sarcastic) There is possibility to stop down a lens but you can't go the other way. I would want that ability for sure.
 

dwarven

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 12, 2019
289
428
California, US
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.

Yes, this is an excellent point and likely the reason Canon is making these primes.

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.

Isn't any photography disappointing in less than ideal lighting conditions?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lo lite