TTArtisans launches the RF 500mm f/6.3

[EricN]

If you are planning on using it on a tripod, I could imagine uses, but as has been mentioned before, the RF 600mm f/11 (stabilised and AF) is not hugely more expensive and, despite the naysayers, is a really good lens.

That's correct for most people in first world countries who have a Canon, but it's for other mounts too.

In first world countries, there is probably young people who rely on their parent's who most likely don't understand how expensive lenses can be.

I know teachers a few in Southeast Asian countries who only make the equivalent of about $500 a month. They have to buy food and gas, pay rent, and save for possible repairs to their car or make car payments. It doesn't leave much for anything else, so I can imagine people in similar situations might not want to almost save for twice as long.

So, that's three groups I can think of and I guess the management at TTArtisan would know about more groups than that.

 

[Jethro]

I know teachers a few in Southeast Asian countries who only make the equivalent of about $500 a month. They have to buy food and gas, pay rent, and save for possible repairs to their car or make car payments. It doesn't leave much for anything else, so I can imagine people in similar situations might not want to almost save for twice as long.

Of course, and cheaper options are a great thing, especially for those on lower incomes who want to try out these lengths. But, bearing all that in mind, if the results they are going to get are this limited, then the last thing anyone wants is for them to spend (for them) large sums of money on a lens like this, and end up disappointed in those results. And maybe be discouraged from trying out other lenses. Pretty much any lens with a decent optical formula can produce good results if used correctly - but within its individual boundaries, and the boundaries for this particular lens are narrower than most.

 

[Jethro]

I notice the lens is described on the barrel as 'Cinema-scene', although none of the marketing fluff mentions that, and none of the images look like anything that would be shot with from a cinema perspective.

 

[koenkooi]

Are you saying the Canon RF cameras do NOT have focus guides/assist that work with a fully manual lens...say a vintage one with no "electrical contacts"?

Correct, you have to glue on a chip to make it say ‘Hi, I’m an MF lens’

 

[GMCPhotographics]

What on earth would you use this telephoto for without AF? Moon shots?

Fine art photos, they are generally out of focus, rather shaky, grainy and under exposed. This should be an ideal lens for them.
I’m wondering if the 305g weight is referring to the lens hood?

 

[Del Paso]

Are you saying the Canon RF cameras do NOT have focus guides/assist that work with a fully manual lens...say a vintage one with no "electrical contacts"?

No focus help with vintage lenses (even Canon ones, like FD or FLs). You get only focus help with manually focused Canon EF or RF ones, even with manual (TSE) or Zeiss EF lenses. So, good luck focusing a long focal manual lens!

 

[Del Paso]

Correct, you have to glue on a chip to make it say ‘Hi, I’m a MF lens’

And the Dandelion chip obliges you to report the correct diaphragm on the lens after having measured the exposition. I forgot it every second time, and finished by removing the chip...

 

[Del Paso]

Now, the limitation which will make this a good option for some people is money. It's ok with me if you aren't interested in in this lens, but I'm certain some people particularly young people will be. Possibly, some smaller percentage of people with enough money to buy something with autofocus and IS might try it as a challenge, too.

Like a friend of mine, with an impressive Leica and Nikon collection, once bought one of these cheap tele lenses from Albinar, just for fun (???). Never understood why...

 

[Nemorino]

No focus help with vintage lenses

Don't forget focus peaking which works with every lens.

 

[AlanF]

Of course, and cheaper options are a great thing, especially for those on lower incomes who want to try out these lengths. But, bearing all that in mind, if the results they are going to get are this limited, then the last thing anyone wants is for them to spend (for them) large sums of money on a lens like this, and end up disappointed in those results. And maybe be discouraged from trying out other lenses. Pretty much any lens with a decent optical formula can produce good results if used correctly - but within its individual boundaries, and the boundaries for this particular lens are narrower than most.

Canon users are very lucky in the lower price range. The RF 100-400mm is a much better bet: it is very sharp and despite being 100mm shorter it will outresolve the 500mm/6.3 by having a 60% higher MTF at 30 lp, as well as having all the advantages of a zoom with close focussing with near macro, and good IS, as well as being well under half the weight and a fraction of the size. It's no contest.

 

[scyrene]

To play devil's advocate a little, many of us who got into long lens work went through the stage of buying cheap old manual telephoto lenses before graduating to better equipment, and at least this will be free of fungus (and maybe have better image quality than something 40+ years old?).

Manual focus is possible, even handheld - there was a time (when I was younger and more enthusiastic) when I photographed birds handheld at 1400mm, MF (although there was IS, I'm not sure how much difference it makes at that FL).

I agree with Alan that the RF 100-400 is a better bet though. This comes back to what I've said on other threads: despite continued moaning by some, Canon has opened up a lot of new options at long focal lengths since introducing the RF mount, especially in the budget range.

 

[kypr.eos]

Here’s a review of the lens: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-ttartisan-500mm-6-3-ed-if/

The weight is indeed around 1600g, which sounds more reasonable than 300g. That makes this lens much less appealing, to me at least.

 

[Del Paso]

Don't forget focus peaking which works with every lens.

Don't tell me you rely on focus peaking...

 

[Nemorino]

Doesn't matter if I rely or not, it is a focus help.

 

[AlanF]

Here’s a review of the lens: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-ttartisan-500mm-6-3-ed-if/

The weight is indeed around 1600g, which sound more reasonable than 300g. That makes this lens much less appealing, to me at least.

Thanks for the heads up. The reviewer has tried to be positive but the images are soft, and very so close up. Here is part of his conclusions:

"There have actually been some very cheap 500mm f/8.0 lenses on the market under different names (e.g. Danubia, Dörr or Beroflex) before, but these have been extremely simple designs: no internal focus, no ED elements, generally low element count (so low they don’t want to disclose in their spec sheets) leading to low resolution images with low contrast.
This TTArtisan lens is a step up in terms of image quality compared to those lenses, but not one as big as I had hoped for. Despite the usage of ED elements I found this lens to show strong CA and at f/6.3 at closer distances the contrast is also too low for my taste, so it felt more like a 500mm f/8.0 lens to me."

 

[neuroanatomist]

You generally get what you pay for. Anyone expecting good optical performance from a 500/6.3 lens costing around $300 has unreasonable expectations.

 

[E_ATL]

Intriguing. As for subject separation, it would be a bit better than the 800 f/11, but only a bit - the physical aperture is only a little wider, and close focus is somewhat better.

A lack of AF would be tricky even with perched birds from a tripod imo; and IBIS won't be any help at that focal length for handheld shots. As for astro, with a good tracking mount any long lens can give good results, although low weight helps (an extreme example: I could never get my EF 500 f/4 to track because it was too heavy for the motors). But given how little you can get secondhand RF 600/800 f/11s now it's still a tough sell.

Wildlife photographers existed before autofocus. It just takes practice.

 

[E_ATL]

Like a friend of mine, with an impressive Leica and Nikon collection, once bought one of these cheap tele lenses from Albinar, just for fun (???). Never understood why...

I once purchased a manual focus super-wide rokinin for a single road trip. There is always a reason.

 

[scyrene]

Wildlife photographers existed before autofocus. It just takes practice.

Sure, and I did a bit of that myself. But there's no need to learn that skill now, given the range of cheap AF options now available. Also I might suggest that minor focus errors are less tolerated with high resolution sensors and heavy cropping, which is the norm nowadays.

 

[Ozarker]

To be serious, there was a time when there was no IS or autofocus. They used tripods more often then. For the price, I think it's not bad.

Very true. Unfortunately, without IS this hobby would take a lot more skill. I'd be out. I have a ton of manual focus lenses and came to the realization that being able to nail focus undoubtedly was a professional skill I might never have the wear with all to master.

On the other hand, if this lens gives good image quality and has a fairly short minimum focus distance I'd be a buyer. I'd have perches and blinds set up all over my 2 acres. I have a 400mm Takumar that really sucks. It has something like a 19' minimum focus distance. It's a real dog. That long minimum fd makes it pretty useless in my hands for the local songbirds. It's also pitifully unsharp.

At the stated price this might be a real gem.