svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Sooooo, f/11 you say? What's Canon up to with these upcoming supertelephoto lenses?

    Sooooo, f/11 you say? What’s Canon up to with these upcoming supertelephoto lenses?

    By 276 Comments2 Mins Read Canon Lens Rumors

    I've known about the RF 600mm f/11 DO IS STM and RF 800 f/11 DO IS STM since about mid-February, I was confused then and I'm confused now.

    Who are these lenses for? Is there possibly some software trickery coming to Canon EOS R cameras?

    I'm thinking about using these lenses on safari for example. I'm not sure there is enough light at dawn and dusk to shoot the wildlife, and there's no point in shooting at noon under the high sun.

    What about videographers, is there any use for f/11 outside of specific situations?

    I'd love to hear your ideas about what these lenses are for.

    I know three more lenses that are for sure coming in 2021 and I will write about them soon.

    Canon News was reminded of a patent from last year for these optical formulas, and the designs are very simple.

    Canon RF 800mm f/11

    • Focal Length 780.00
    • F-Number 11.00
    • Half Field Angle 1.59 (.degree.)
    • Image Height 21.64
    • Total Length of 389.25
    • Lens BF 127.73

    Canon RF 600mm f/11

    • Focal Length 585.00
    • F-Number 10.99
    • Half Field Angle 2.12 (.degree.)
    • Image Height 21.64
    • Total Length of 334.87
    • Lens BF 134.40

    Canon RF 400mm f/8

    • Focal Length 390.00
    • F-Number 8.20
    • Half Field Angle 3.18 (.degree.)
    • Image Height 21.64
    • Total Length of 250.00
    • Lens BF 92.99

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    276 comments

    1. These are the "telephotos for the masses". Many people would love a telephoto lens but don't want the weight or incredible cost. Remember that most telephoto micro four-thirds lenses render a DOF of F/8 or higher, so if they figured out a way to make these lenses AF well in low-light, they should be great. I think it's a great idea, provided Canon doesn't just stop there. I'd still hope to see some F/4 or F/5.6 DOs in the future.
    2. Yachting and surfing comes to mind. Perfect for sport in good weather in general. But still speciality lenses for sure. Hopefully the price will be nice. I also imagine these to be quite small and handy.
    3. Like I said in the other thread, I think these are going to be an incredibly good value and incredibly portable. $1000-$1500 for these as non-L STM lenses that can fit in basically any bag would be super impressive.

      Here's something to consider: the biggest cause of the falling camera market is because of the use of cellphone cameras. What's one thing cellpbone cameras can't compete with simply because of physics? Zoom. Long, cheap zoom is a huge advantage of buying a camera, and 600mm even at f/11 could be a super exciting consumer lens. Especially considering the size.

      I shoot almost all of my casual wildlife work with my 100-400 and 1.4 at F/8 to F/11, so I would be interested to grab the 800mm f/11 depending on how things look.
    4. I've been thinking about this since I read the original post earlier today. Can't come up with a single place where I'd find either one of these lenses useful. Other than not costing $13K, I can't imagine any benefit.
    5. If the R6 has a 20MPx sensor, it will be able to use very high ISOs, so high f/11 should not be a problem.

      Or maybe Canon just want to make the f/7.1 lenses more attractive - suddenly, they seem to be quite fast ;)
    6. These 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).
    7. These are lenses for people like me, and god I am excited for them. These are for the hobbyist and enthusiasts that dont have $13000 to put down on a lens, but just want to get a shot! f11 is plenty for non-professional work for people like me who are already used to a bit of noise in their shots. As someone who has shot many a bird with a Canon 100-400 and Sigma 150-600 with either extended these could be an absolute breath of fresh air. Extenders are primarily known for their slow AF performance (when you get it) and compromised image quality (especially on the 2x). If you're shooting with these already, a dedicated lense is going to offer much better IQ, and I guess the R model cameras are going to be able to handle the AF better. The R cameras are also going to handle that noise better.

      Sure, F11 wont get you enough light at early dawn or just before dusk. But they would offer a greatly reduced barrier to entry for weekend warriors like myself, especially as most of my shooting opportunities are typically during the day when light would certainly permit the use of these lenses.

      Wildlife, bird, and most serious sport photography has a very serious price tag as a barrier for entry. I am so excited to think that Canon might look to finally address that, where Sigma and Tamron tried but havent yet quite hit the mark.

      Sometimes getting A shot is the same as getting THE shot, especially when you would otherwise get NO shot. A reality that I think is lost on many 'invested' photographers who like to turn their noses up at anything seemingly cheap or perceived to be sub-par.
    8. I owned a Nikon 1000 f/11 mirror lens for a couple years and used it a decent amount. Solar eclipse, lunar eclipse, crazy landscape shots, volcanic eruptions. https://www.flickr.com/search/[email protected]&sort=date-taken-desc&view_all=1&text=nikon 1000

      I would definitely be interested in the 800 f/11 if it was priced right (<$1000 used) and had good quality and IS. I don't want to drop $10K to haul around an enormous 800 f/5.6, and I'm ok shooting with extremely burly tripods. I don't care about AF either, but the chance of having IS but not AF is zero.
    9. I have used my 100-400 with a 2X TC, and that is f/11 equivalent at 800mm. Obviously, it is for brightly lit objects that are not moving. With the 5 stop IS on the EOS R, it would be possible to use a relatively slow shutter speed and keep ISO's down as long as there is little or no motion. It might even be possible to get some clear BIF shots by sortng thru 8K video frames.

      If the lens is reasonably priced, and smaller and light, I'd at least be interested as useful for having a long telephoto with me while traveling.

      Canon has a lot of photographers on their staff who try and use prototype bodies and lenses in many different situations, that is why they seldom get it wrong for the targeted customer.

      That slider thingy bar on the back of my R is a example of a big miss.
    10. I would definitely be interested in the 800 f/11 if it was priced right (<$1000 used) and had good quality and IS. I don't want to drop $10K to haul around an enormous 800 f/5.6, and I'm ok shooting with extremely burly tripods. I don't care about AF either, but the chance of having IS but not AF is zero.
      Exactly this. I love my 100-400 but my biggest gripe is throwing a 2x on it. The process of taking the lens off, putting the 2x on, putting the lens back on, and trying to work out what to do with the lens caps in the meantime, is a frustrating one by itself, and much moreso when the AF is dodgy and the IQ is compromised. Give me a 800 f/11 to carry along side my 100-400 and I will be the happiest bushwalker you've ever seen.
    13. I started to get some wildlife shots using a Tamron 150-600. For it to be somehow sharp at 600mm you need to stop down to f9, which was never a problem for my amateur photos. If the new lenses are sharp right at f11 and focus fast, it's not too much of a difference and gives plenty of reach in a hopefully light package.
    14. For me it's not a matter of whether I would *choose* to shoot at f/11 on other lenses, but the fact that an f/11 lens doesn't afford me the flexibility to shoot faster if need be. Having an f/5.6 lens and shooting at f/11 is much different than needing f/5.6 but only having f/11. Yes, if the new cams resolve better at low light that's great, but I still would rather shoot at lower ISO values and a wider aperture. Every lens has its target audience, I get that, but I'm still baffled by Canon's aperture choices of many of these lenses being talked about. And I would argue I'm clearly not in the target audience for them. :-)
    15. I'm thinking of all the cases where a super-tele would be required, and shallow DOF is undesireable / irrelevant... Architectural details, abstract shots, landscapes. The compression you could get from this set-up would yeild some really unique images for a whole range of photographers who would neither be willing to fork out for a wider aperture super-tele prime nor be willing to carry it around to find these shots.

      Imagine hiking with one of those big whites, just in case you saw a shot that suited it. You'd have to be crazy. But with something that clocked it at maybe a quarter of the weight? Now you're talking.

      These lenses are designed to be relevant for decades. We've been hearing that the R5 and R6 will be using a new sensor, so it's entirely likely that there may be 2/3rds of a stop better high ISO performance over the current crop of Canons. And then the following generation could be yet another small increase still. In that context, maybe it would be better to imagine these as performing as though they were F/8 lenses on current cameras (DOF notwithstanding).

      With the already great 5Div sensor in the EOS R paired with incredible feats of engineering such as the RF 28-70 F/2, we're being spoiled by better and better incremental gains in performance. But sometimes, it's worth trading in some of that excess performance for cheaper or lighter. For the exact same reason someone might be happy to continue to use the EF 24-70 F/4 with the EOS 5Diii, quite a few people will be happy to use these F/11 super-teles with the R5/R6. Different priorities.
    16. What would be a funny overlap is to see the venn diagram of people who say these lenses aren't targeted for them, and those who can actually afford or justify owning a 800mm f/5.6

      I'd rather pick up the 800mm f/11 on a whim for $1500 and have 800mm available to me for eclipses/etc than spend years dreaming of picking up a 800 :unsure:

      Especially considering that on the 1.6x crop mode of the R5, this turns into a 1280mm. If the R5 is 45mp, that still gives you around 18 megapixels at 1280mm
    17. For me it's not a matter of whether I would *choose* to shoot at f/11 on other lenses, but the fact that an f/11 lens doesn't afford me the flexibility to shoot faster if need be. Having an f/5.6 lens and shooting at f/11 is much different than needing f/5.6 but only having f/11. Yes, if the new cams resolve better at low light that's great, but I still would rather shoot at lower ISO values and a wider aperture. Every lens has its target audience, I get that, but I'm still baffled by Canon's aperture choices of many of these lenses being talked about. And I would argue I'm clearly not in the target audience for them. :)

      Having a 600 f/4 or a 800 f/5.6 that costs more than 12000 new is different than something that is f/11 and would cost between 1000-2000, isn't it? And don't forget the differences in size and weight.
    19. What would be a funny overlap is to see the venn diagram of people who say these lenses aren't targeted for them, and those who can actually afford or justify owning a 800mm f/5.6

      I'd rather pick up the 800mm f/11 on a whim for $1500 and have 800mm available to me for eclipses/etc than spend years dreaming of picking up a 800 :unsure:

      Especially considering that on the 1.6x crop mode of the R5, this turns into a 1280mm. If the R5 is 45mp, that still gives you around 18 megapixels at 1280mm

      Agreed. I'm going to look into the RF 100-500 when it comes out. With that + a 1.4x TC, the 500mm f/11 won't be that appealing. I'll wait for reviews on the 600mm f/11 before looking into it. I'd like to see it compared to the 100-500 with 1.4x and 2.0x TCs. I'm guessing that the higher end solution will be the 100-500 with a supertelephoto above that. The more consumer end solution would be a 70-300 non-L paired with a f/11 supertelephoto.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment