TTArtisans launches the RF 500mm f/6.3

[Ozarker]

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

Focus peaking gets you in the ballpark.

 

[AlanF]

Wildlife photographers existed before autofocus. It just takes practice.

"Just takes practice". Tack sharp shots of birds in flight taken with manual focus lenses were few and far between and the keeper rate very low. I'm pretty good at it with the latest AF and it would be a tedious and frustrating crap shoot without it, even for me to get any keepers at all. You had to be unbelievably skilful and use tricks of prefocussing etc. Today, the top BIF guys migrate to the best AF systems they can get as they are introduced, jumping ship from Canon to Nikon, then to Sony and then back again to improve their keeper rate and what shots they can get.

 

[Del Paso]

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

O.K.!

 

[EricN]

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.

It's difficult to know, because a lot will depend on the salespeople's honesty and common sense of the buyer to have limited expectations. If we see more products like it in the future, it turned out well. If this is the only one, it was mediocre at best.

 

[EricN]

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.

The review seems really honest. I wonder how well using a sand bag would work with it....

 

[EricN]

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.

It seems to me, it's not great, but if they buyer doesn't have the option to buy Canon's rf 100-400mm or 600mm f/11, it could the best option under $1,000

 

[Del Paso]

"Just takes practice". Tack sharp shots of birds in flight taken with manual focus lenses were few and far between and the keeper rate very low. I'm pretty good at it with the latest AF and it would be a tedious and frustrating crap shoot without it, even for me to get any keepers at all. You had to be unbelievably skilful and use tricks of prefocussing etc. Today, the top BIF guys migrate to the best AF systems they can get as they are introduced, jumping ship from Canon to Nikon, then to Sony and then back again to improve their keeper rate and what shots they can get.

In so-called olden times, I often tried to get bird pictures, mostly hawks, kites and buzzards, with my 560mm fast focusing manual Telyt.
I certainly must have scrapped far more than 90% of the expensive Kodachrome shots, even of perched birds. And film was far more focus tolerant than nowadays' sensors. Owning a wonderful Apo Telyt 180mm, I sometimes feel kind of a moral obligation to use it. But focusing it is slow and no pleasure... and is it so much better than the 70-200mm f4 ???

 

[DhlcadR6]

2nd hand EF 300mm f4L with x1.4 probably is a better solution....

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It seems to me, it's not great, but if they buyer doesn't have the option to buy Canon's rf 100-400mm or 600mm f/11, it could the best option under $1,000

There is always a used Tamron 200-500 f/5-63

 

[EricN]

There is always a used Tamron 200-500 f/5-63

Hopefully people wanting one can find them in good enough condition at a low price.

 

[Elgogo]

Unrelated subject: I’m in the market for a new super telephoto lens
does canon typically releases new gear in October ? Wondering about that 200-500 F4 ? I’m Considering the RF 400 F2.8 vs waiting for 200-500 F4 ( if it’s true)
Ps: (money not a problem) but considering the versatility of a 200-500mm vs 400mm

 

[Ozarker]

This lens may end up being a buy for me next year. I'd be set up with a tripod near a feeder with natural perches all around.

 

[E_ATL]

"Just takes practice". Tack sharp shots of birds in flight taken with manual focus lenses were few and far between and the keeper rate very low. I'm pretty good at it with the latest AF and it would be a tedious and frustrating crap shoot without it, even for me to get any keepers at all. You had to be unbelievably skilful and use tricks of prefocussing etc. Today, the top BIF guys migrate to the best AF systems they can get as they are introduced, jumping ship from Canon to Nikon, then to Sony and then back again to improve their keeper rate and what shots they can get.

Sounds like that rare "tack sharp" image really separated the pros from the rest. As it should have.

 

[AlanF]

Sounds like that rare "tack sharp" image really separated the pros from the rest. As it should have.

They also didn't have digital in the old days. Art Morris (birdsasart.com) used to shoot birds on slide film and he once showed a dustbin full of discarded slides. The pros needed large dustbins and a deep wallet for film. This is what pros do nowadays https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/04/30/aerial-photography-footage-flying-birds/

Nowadays, any amateur can get good sharp BIF shots, and that's how it should be.

 

[E_ATL]

They also didn't have digital in the old days. Art Morris (birdsasart.com) used to shoot birds on slide film and he once showed a dustbin full of discarded slides. The pros needed large dustbins and a deep wallet for film. This what pros do nowadays https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/04/30/aerial-photography-footage-flying-birds/

Nowadays, any amateur can get good sharp BIF flights, and that's how it should be.

I shot film (chrome and BW neg) the first 20 years of my career. I do not miss those days. the cost of film/processing and storage space alone make me question why people on social media brag about shooting film. They have no idea.

That link is cool to see. Clearly not amateurs.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This is what pros do nowadays https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/04/30/aerial-photography-footage-flying-birds/

but gear does not matter.