TDP has image quality of 600mm f/11 posted

[AlanF]

The Digital Picture has posted the image quality of the 600mm f/11 on the R5. It's only one copy of the lens and the usual caveats but the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII at 560mm on the 5DSR seems distinctly sharper with better contrast, especially at the edges where you would expect a prime to win.

Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

It's due to the lenses not just the difference between the sensors as he has compared the same lens (200mm f/2L IS) on both cameras, and they are very similar.

Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[brad-man]

Let's not forget that the prime weighs half as much and costs less than a third as much. There is no free lunch...

 

[tron]

Nice catch Alan! I was tempted to use other combination in the right part like 400DOII + 1.4XIII or even 400DOII+2XIII !!

I even put the left side to 840 but in 840 at the f/16 sucks. And the diffraction limit of R5 is around f/7 !!! Huge difference.

So I wonder how fast R5 focuses with 400DOII + Teleconverters....

 

[AlanF]

Let's not forget that the prime weighs half as much and costs less than a third as much. There is no free lunch...

There is when you have old reliable that has given good service for 5 years, and you don't have to buy a new lens when the old one has better IQ and has a zoom to boot. The odds are that most existing nature photographers have the 100-400 or similar.

 

[AlanF]

Nice catch Alan! I was tempted to use other combination in the right part like 400DOII + 1.4XIII or even 400DOII+2XIII !!

I even put the left side to 840 but in 840 at the f/16 sucks. And the diffraction limit of R5 is around f/7 !!! Huge difference.

So I wonder how fast R5 focuses with 400DOII + Teleconverters....

Accounts elsewhere are that the 400DO II bare and with the 1.4x AF fast, but the 2xTC slows it down. I have some seller's remorse about disposing of my 400DO II but I am not going back - I like the Canon zooms so much because of their flexibility, IQ and AF that I happily travel with the 100-400mm II as my sole telephoto lens.

 

[brad-man]

There is when you have old reliable that has given good service for 5 years, and you don't have to buy a new lens when the old one has better IQ and has a zoom to boot. The odds are that most existing nature photographers have the 100-400 or similar.

True. But I doubt owners of the 100-400II and 1.4 extender are the target consumers of the extendable prime(s). The RF100-500 maybe, but not the primes. I'm looking forward to the release of the 500 zoom. Then maybe I'll upgrade my 100-400 v1 when the v2 prices drop...

 

[tron]

Accounts elsewhere are that the 400DO II bare and with the 1.4x AF fast, but the 2xTC slows it down. I have some seller's remorse about disposing of my 400DO II but I am not going back - I like the Canon zooms so much because of their flexibility, IQ and AF that I happily travel with the 100-400mm II as my sole telephoto lens.

No reason to have seller's remorse since you got 500PF and you can always add R5 +100-500 to your kit later.
I have an issue with 100-400. I sometimes zoom out but then forget to zoom in again and end up getting shots with less magnification! User error of course!

 

[Jethro]

Underlines what a stunning lens the 100-400DOII is, even with extender! But as an occasional user, and one who never imagined owning this length of prime, the RF 600mm f/11 still looks covet-worthy to me. I'll be interested in how the 800mm fares as well.

 

[Bert63]

To my eye that looks pretty rough - I say this as someone that lives @ 560mm f/8..

So curious how the 100-500L with a 1.4 is going to work..

 

[H. Jones]

There is when you have old reliable that has given good service for 5 years, and you don't have to buy a new lens when the old one has better IQ and has a zoom to boot. The odds are that most existing nature photographers have the 100-400 or similar.

The difference is, with these lenses, is that they're aimed at a market below even the people who have a 100-400. The 800mm on its own is barely above the cost of an old mark I 100-400 on eBay right now, and that's before you add in the cost of a 2x extender. The 600mm costs less than a T8i, for heaven's sake.

Now consider how much these lenses will cost in just a few years used/refurbished. The 800mm will easily have a street price of $500 only a few years. These lenses are going sell boatloads when they get discounts to people who would never be able to afford even a 100-400 IS II, nevermind the $3000 100-500.

They're the $100 nifty fifty of supertelephoto lenses, and that's a market segment that I don't think any major camera brand has seriously targeted before. As much at the 600mm f/11 doesn't have *any* interest to me, I'm sure it will outsell even the more interesting 800mm f/11 solely due to price. Any Joe Schmo with a camera will be able to pick up a tiny 600mm lens now for his zoo trip for less than the price of a T8i, and I have no doubt in a few years these lenses will be everywhere.

 

[Bert63]

The difference is, with these lenses, is that they're aimed at a market below even the people who have a 100-400. The 800mm on its own is barely above the cost of an old mark I 100-400 on eBay right now, and that's before you add in the cost of a 2x extender. The 600mm costs less than a T8i, for heaven's sake.

Now consider how much these lenses will cost in just a few years used/refurbished. The 800mm will easily have a street price of $500 only a few years. These lenses are going sell boatloads when they get discounts to people who would never be able to afford even a 100-400 IS II, nevermind the $3000 100-500.

They're the $100 nifty fifty of supertelephoto lenses, and that's a market segment that I don't think any major camera brand has seriously targeted before. As much at the 600mm f/11 doesn't have *any* interest to me, I'm sure it will outsell even the more interesting 800mm f/11 solely due to price. Any Joe Schmo with a camera will be able to pick up a tiny 600mm lens now for his zoo trip for less than the price of a T8i, and I have no doubt in a few years these lenses will be everywhere.

I read somewhere (meaning I can't vouch for the credibility) that the images out of the 800mm f/11 were comparable to what you could capture with the old 400mm f/5.6. If so, that would be amazing, but then here comes the f/11 to kill your hopes and dreams.

I also read the images out of the 600mm were pretty dismal. IMO, people looking at the 600mm f/11 would do well to go for the Sigma 150-600 for a few bucks less and gain versatility and better ISO performance from the f/6.3 versus the fixed f/11.

The new 100-500L is $2700 versus the $2200 for the 100-400L. $500 for an extra 100mm.. Given the excellent performance I get out of the 100-400L II + 1.4X III @ 560mm I don't know if it's worth it. On the new 100-500L you can throw on the new 1.4X and be at 700mm, but then here comes f/10 to wreck your day.

So many choices but none are very fast for what you pay.

I would love to buy the big white, but I don't think I'd like fixed zoom or the weight. I like to be mobile.

Very curious about the 100-500L.

 

[unfocused]

I'm a little surprised, as I thought that this might be similar to the 55-250 EF-S, which is super cheap but quite sharp. I was guessing similar build quality but also similar optical quality. When I compare the two, it looks to me that the 55-250 is a sharper lens (I know it's not a good comparison and hard to tell with such different focal lengths, but that's the way it looks to me.)

 

[AlanF]

Much of the loss of sharpness and contrast is from what you would expect from diffraction for an f/11 lens. But, it’s a bit worse than that as you can see by comparing it with a big white stopped down to f/11. The lens will look better on an R6 where diffraction will be less important on the lower pixel sensor.

Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 600mm F11 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[AlanF]

Don't get me wrong, I think the 600mm/11 lens is nice and will have its uses and appreciative user base. I am pleased that we 100-400mm and related-lens fans need not have any GAS for it.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Don't get me wrong, I think the 600mm/11 lens is nice and will have its uses and appreciative user base. I am pleased that we 100-400mm and related-lens fans need not have any GAS for it.

I think the 800mm is more tempting, it is much harder to get to 800mm. But when I look at the 600 and 800mm f/11 lenses I always keep in mind you get less AF area, they are super light and compact, and their cost in more inline with the RF tele converters than a big lens.

 

[AlanF]

I think the 800mm is more tempting, it is much harder to get to 800mm. But when I look at the 600 and 800mm f/11 lenses I always keep in mind you get less AF area, they are super light and compact, and their cost in more inline with the RF tele converters than a big lens.

The 800 will give much better resolution - it's 33% extra length and 33% wider front lens conspire to that. I have calculated the MTF values for diffraction and sensor pixel size for the various lenses and will post them when I have time. It's not a walk around lens, like the 600mm, but it's the one for long distances and would attract me. Forget about the TCs with them, basically a waste of time.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The 800 will give much better resolution - it's 33% extra length and 33% wider front lens conspire to that. I have calculated the MTF values for diffraction and sensor pixel size for the various lenses and will post them when I have time. It's not a walk around lens, like the 600mm, but it's the one for long distances and would attract me. Forget about the TCs with them, basically a waste of time.

I'll look forward to reading that. The 800 appeals to me since getting to 800 otherwise is currently a lot of compromises, but even at f/11 the images look quite good and it's weight is low enough to sit in my backpack for times when 500mm isn't enough.

 

[tron]

I'll look forward to reading that. The 800 appeals to me since getting to 800 otherwise is currently a lot of compromises, but even at f/11 the images look quite good and it's weight is low enough to sit in my backpack for times when 500mm isn't enough.

And the 800 maybe decent paired with EOS R.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

And the 800 maybe decent paired with EOS R.

From the sample images that seems so, but I sadly don't have a R. I am looking at the R5 but will give a while longer to see if there are any musings of a R1. The RF 800 might be a cracker for taking on a boat out to the Isle of May where I wouldn't want to take expensive kid through fear of falling off the boat.

 

[tron]

From the sample images that seems so, but I sadly don't have a R. I am looking at the R5 but will give a while longer to see if there are any musings of a R1. The RF 800 might be a cracker for taking on a boat out to the Isle of May where I wouldn't want to take expensive kid through fear of falling off the boat.

What kind of boat is that you are afraid of losing your gear? And in that case the 800 wouldn't be the problem but an R5 behind it would (costwise).