Most of my bird photos are f/9 or f/10 and ISO up to 6400 and I can AF comfortably with R camera at f/11. I don't see f/11 on R that restrictive to take pictures as light and requirements are concerned. I think diffraction may be more restrictive. If f/11 is a good compromise for weight, agility and cost, then so be it.... 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. ...
Not if you buy RF lensesThese f/11 lenses aren't for me, not in Scotland when most of my photography is on rather gloomy days. But on a bright day someplace bright I could see a 800mm f/11 lens being great value or for someone just getting into it. Wildlife photography has been one of the most expensive routes into photography(Compared to people or macro where you can get 1-2 sub £500 lenses and you are good to go).
And the shots you want are irrelevant if you can't afford the gear needed to get them. ;-)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.
Have you ever used these focal lengths? I have regularly - 400mm DO II + 2xTC at 800mm and 500mm + 1.4xTC at 700mm - down to 1/80s on occasion.Aside from light, are people forgetting about the focal length here? You're going to need some pretty fast shutter speeds at those lengths. Other than the mid afternoon on 100% sunny days you're not going to get it
The 600mm is 310 mm long and the 800mm is 370 mm long according to the patent linked in the other thread. That is, with the flange distance subtracted, so that these lengths refer only to the part sticking out past the mount.Can someone translate the patent numbers? Is the length of the lens provided?