The Digital Picture has posted RF 800mm f/11 Image Quality

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,776
8,555
Bryan of TDP has just posted the 800mm image quality on the R5. I've linked the results with those that many of us want to see compared, the 100-400mm II + 2xTC on the 5DSR (the 5DSR ~ same IQ sensor as R5). https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0

Now, even though TDP is one of my real favourite sites and Bryan is as reliable as they come, 5-star-rated, he is looking at basically only one copy of each done at different times so you don't bet the house or buy just on his IQ charts. But, at this stage, it seems that the two lenses are very similar in IQ. It seems most likely to me that both lenses are close to being diffraction limited at f/11.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,776
8,555
Looks like a slight edge to the 800mm, at least in contrast. Both are a little less than I would want to keep.
Just tried out the 100-400mm II + 2xTc on the 90D in liveview, which is a more demanding sensor, being equivalent to 82 Mpx. It's pretty good. The contrast is one of the easier things to sort out in post.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,609
1,571
Comparing to a EF 400mm f/5.6 with 2X YC is interesting. They are closer in price and design. IBIS adds stabilization to the 400 too. The samples look sharper in the corners, softer in the center. A 300mm f/4 with 2X TC is very similar to the RF 600.

If you already have those EF lenses, its probably no advantage IQ wise to get the RF.

The 100-400mmL has other advantages like zoom and close focusing, those may be worth a lot to those needing more magnification.

Since the images of the EF are with a 5DS, they do have a advantage of higher pixel density, so its not possible to put them on equal footings but, if Brian used them both on the R series camera, it might be closer.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,776
8,555
Do you have sample images with the 2X?
Shots of a chart from the 100+400mm II + 2xTCIII are similar in resolution to those from the 400mm DO + 2xTCIII. Here is a shot of ~4000px x2600px from the centre of the 90D + 100+400mm II + 2xTCIII, compared with the best resolving combo I have, a 500mm f/5.6 PF + 1.4xTC on a D500. The 90D shot (top) has been downsized 30% as it is too large to be uploaded here. The 700mm PF is sharper than the 400mm DO II at 800mm, both at f/8, and resolves better, despite being shorter.

Edit - the site has reduced the sizes to a width of 2048 px.
IMG_8969-DxO_Canon90D200-800mm-lss_downsized30%.jpg
DSC_4425-DxO_NikonD500PF500_700mm-lss.jpg
 

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,236
662
Eastern Shore
Shots of a chart from the 100+400mm II + 2xTCIII are similar in resolution to those from the 400mm DO + 2xTCIII. Here is a shot of ~4000px x2600px from the centre of the 90D + 100+400mm II + 2xTCIII, compared with the best resolving combo I have, a 500mm f/5.6 PF + 1.4xTC on a D500. The 90D shot (top) has been downsized 30% as it is too large to be uploaded here. The 700mm PF is sharper than the 400mm DO II at 800mm, both at f/8, and resolves better, despite being shorter.

Edit - the site has reduced the sizes to a width of 2048 px. View attachment 192306 View attachment 192307
Thank you. i’m not very impressed by the 100-400mm + 2X, but damn, the Nikon 500 + 1.4X is impressive. I can‘t jump ship now, but can hope for Canon to bring out a 500mm f5.6 as good as the Nikon. Larger aperture lenses than this are just too heavy for me to hold. In the mean time, I will have to content myself with not going beyond 1.4X on the 400mm.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,776
8,555
Thank you. i’m not very impressed by the 100-400mm + 2X, but damn, the Nikon 500 + 1.4X is impressive. I can‘t jump ship now, but can hope for Canon to bring out a 500mm f5.6 as good as the Nikon. Larger aperture lenses than this are just too heavy for me to hold. In the mean time, I will have to content myself with not going beyond 1.4X on the 400mm.
A 500/5.6 is simply so much more versatile than an 800/11. I can go out on a hike and take photos of dragonflies and butterflies at 3m or birds in the distance and sling on a 1.4xTC if need be. Similarly with a 400/4. The 100-500 is very attractive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cornieleous

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,160
768
A 500/5.6 is simply so much more versatile than an 800/11. I can go out on a hike and take photos of dragonflies and butterflies at 3m or birds in the distance and sling on a 1.4xTC if need be. Similarly with a 400/4. The 100-500 is very attractive.
Yes, but in places like this, the 500/5.6 is going to cost 4x as much as the 800/11 (and that excludes the TC)

The 100-500 isn't that much cheaper than the 500/5.6 either (plus teleconverter). So it is simply a question of affordability for many people.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
779
791
Scotland
The 100-500 isn't that much cheaper than the 500/5.6 either (plus teleconverter). So it is simply a question of affordability for many people.

The 100-500 is about £1000 more expensive than the 500/5.6, well when taking into account complete systems. I have a basket with a D850+500mm f/5.6 and another with a R5 and 100-500. The Canon side is about £1000 more expensive. I can't wait to see the reviews to see how both complete setups will compare until the big lenses come to Z and RF.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,776
8,555
Yes, but in places like this, the 500/5.6 is going to cost 4x as much as the 800/11 (and that excludes the TC)

The 100-500 isn't that much cheaper than the 500/5.6 either (plus teleconverter). So it is simply a question of affordability for many people.
Quite so. However, the economics are not so simple. The 800/11 is a specialised lens that is fine under suitable conditions when you need that focal length, but you will also need another lens to go with it for closer ups, wider angles, action and dull light conditions. Nature photographers would probably have a 100-400 or 100-500mm as well. I know I can travel with a 100-400/500 and cover most of what I need or with a 400/500mm prime for 90%. The 800/11 would cover only a small fraction of my requirements. If you have a limited budget a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm would be much more useful - they are of outstanding value and give quality images.

Edi: Billybob has posted https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1069#post-857727 " I sent back my 800mm. It was too dark for shooting in the backyard, and I struggled mightily with BIF shooting." and he would love a compact 500mm. The 800/11 is a very specialised lens
 
Last edited:

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,609
1,571
Quite so. However, the economics are not so simple. The 800/11 is a specialised lens that is fine under suitable conditions when you need that focal length, but you will also need another lens to go with it for closer ups, wider angles, action and dull light conditions. Nature photographers would probably have a 100-400 or 100-500mm as well. I know I can travel with a 100-400/500 and cover most of what I need or with a 400/500mm prime for 90%. The 800/11 would cover only a small fraction of my requirements. If you have a limited budget a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm would be much more useful - they are of outstanding value and give quality images.

Edi: Billybob has posted https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1069#post-857727 " I sent back my 800mm. It was too dark for shooting in the backyard, and I struggled mightily with BIF shooting." and he would love a compact 500mm. The 800/11 is a very specialised lens
Yes, 800mm is for certain situations, and has a lot of limitations. People will buy iy because they think that 800mm will be very useful. For me, a 100-500 sounds good, but I'm keeping my 100-400 for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HenryL and AlanF

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,776
8,555
Yes, 800mm is for certain situations, and has a lot of limitations. People will buy iy because they think that 800mm will be very useful. For me, a 100-500 sounds good, but I'm keeping my 100-400 for now.
Same here, my 100-400 is really good. I am intrigued how the Sigma 150-600mm will fare.
 

zim

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Oct 18, 2011
2,126
316
Describing the Queen as a 'perched bird'... Off to the tower with you! :eek: :giggle:
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,776
8,555
My local dealer knocked at my front door yesterday with a big smile and gave me an RF 800mm to play with for a week - Canon had left him a demo! Here is my quick first impression.
The lens is a joy to hold compared with my 400mm DO II + 2xTC in terms of weight. It's AF isn't as as fast though.
At 20m from a target, it's of similar sharpness to the 400mm DO II at 800mm and better than the RF 100-500mm at 700mm with a 1.4xTC, about what you would expect for the extra 100mm length.
At its minimum focal distance of 6m, it is only marginally outresolving the zoom at 700mm and much worse than the 400mm DO II, both of which will allow you to go closer.
It works quite well with the 1.4xTC but AF slows down.
Birds in flight aren't easy to follow because of the narrow field of view at 800mm and it will focus only in the central zone. Also, high shutter speeds are needed for BIF and f/11 doesn't help.
My views haven't really changed. It's a very nice lens and excellent value for money. I could see myself using it if I was going out for a hike and it was a bright day and I knew all the birds would be far away. Or, if I was going to a hide or stopping at places in my car and there wasn't much walking I could take it along with my 100-500mm II + 1.4xTC.
 
<-- start Taboola -->