arbitrage wrote:
First image showing the new silver color and an idea of the length/width of the 600/800DO
I think that is an interesting look.
Collapsable?...seems they may be as they look like the top section may be extendable considering such a new design?? Also they look too short to be at full length in relation to the known size of the 100-500 next to them.
Also July 9th is announcement.
juststeve wrote:
The EVF bulge on the R5 and R6 appears to be a bit wider than that of the R just to the right. Perhaps this is just because of the two new cameras being a bit closer, but it could signify a newer higher density EVF. One can hope.
The two new Teles do appear to be collapsable. When Canon is patenting zooms with 8 to 9 moving units--see the 120-700 patents--they have probably figured out how to collapse those two lenses and still keep everything in alignment. All that collapsing stuff will probably add a bit of weight but with small lightweight lens elements maybe they still come in at under 3 pounds.
Nokishita has posted some of the basic specs from the two DO lenses:
The specifications of the Canon "RF600mm F11 IS STM" are as follows: 10 elements in 7 groups (including DO lens), minimum shooting distance of 4.5 m, maximum shooting magnification of 0.14 times, camera shake correction effect of 5.0 steps, filter diameter 82 mm, size φ 93 x 199.5 mm (When retracted)/269.5mm (when shooting), it seems to weigh 930g.
The specifications of the Canon "RF800mm F11 IS STM" are 11 elements in 8 groups (including DO lens), minimum shooting distance 6.0m, maximum shooting magnification 0.14x, camera shake correction effect 4.0 steps, filter diameter 95mm, size φ101.6x281. It seems to be .8mm (when retracted)/351.8mm (when shooting) and weighs 1260g.
**I believe that 800DO spec is supposed to read 281.8mm when retracted.
Sure are ugly looking when extended....also 0.14x mag for an 800 and 6m MFD is pretty hard to work with...back to the 800/5.6 days. I'm way too used to having much better mag with an 800mm lens because I'm always using TCs to get there.
arbitrage wrote:
Nokishita has posted some of the basic specs from the two DO lenses:
The specifications of the Canon "RF600mm F11 IS STM" are as follows: 10 elements in 7 groups (including DO lens), minimum shooting distance of 4.5 m, maximum shooting magnification of 0.14 times, camera shake correction effect of 5.0 steps, filter diameter 82 mm, size φ 93 x 199.5 mm (When retracted)/269.5mm (when shooting), it seems to weigh 930g.
The specifications of the Canon "RF800mm F11 IS STM" are 11 elements in 8 groups (including DO lens), minimum shooting distance 6.0m, maximum shooting magnification 0.14x, camera shake correction effect 4.0 steps, filter diameter 95mm, size φ101.6x281. It seems to be .8mm (when retracted)/351.8mm (when shooting) and weighs 1260g.
**I believe that 800DO spec is supposed to read 281.8mm when retracted....Show more →
Why is the front end of the 800/11 so large at 95 mm? A 95 mm aperture should give us an f/9 lens at worst. I was assuming that it would be 82 mm at most, and that is a bit generous for vignetting. 6m/20 ft. MFD is too long for many subjects without tubes, which would have to be quite long.
With regard to the MFD, I wonder if it would make more sense to make a lens like that have a better MFD and just not focus to infinity. Kind of weird but I feel like infinity focus is rarely needed on a lens like that.
arbitrage wrote:
Sure are ugly looking when extended....also 0.14x mag for an 800 and 6m MFD is pretty hard to work with...back to the 800/5.6 days. I'm way too used to having much better mag with an 800mm lens because I'm always using TCs to get there.
I would say more like unusual looking than ugly. Not particularly more ugly than conventonal extending zooms. It feels a bit awkward or unstable with the thin barrel at the camera side. If the lens is front heavy, it is not a bad idea though, just takes a bit getting used to.
Optically, this design would mean that the whole lens is contained in the main section (looking at the patent drawings). No elements move relative to each other upon extensions. This bodes well for the consistency of the image quality.
What is wrong with F/11? It is mirrorless now. The EVF shows your motive as crisp and clear like it looks at F/5.6 (or F/1.2). Would two stops at 800mm really destroy bokeh and DoF that much?
I guess we are talking about a lens, priced far below its 14k F/5.6 equivalent, arenīt we?
JasonTheBirder wrote:
With regard to the MFD, I wonder if it would make more sense to make a lens like that have a better MFD and just not focus to infinity. Kind of weird but I feel like infinity focus is rarely needed on a lens like that.
That would not work: the extension needed for going from e.g. 100m focus distance to infinity is much smaller than for increasing magnification from current 0.14x to a more useful 0.3x. You could make a lens going from e.g. 0.2x to 0.4x (which would be a super-specialized optic) or a lens with e.g. 0.3x magnification to infinity that is significantly heavier. Canon probably decided that for the average buyer of this lens the MFD is less important.
Especially with DO optics I wonder if the infinity design might hurt performance at high magnification (when you add extension rings or 2x TC). Although offering good (native) MFD doesn't guarantee good optical performance for closeups on a Canon lens (the 100-400II comes to mind ...).
JasonTheBirder wrote:
With regard to the MFD, I wonder if it would make more sense to make a lens like that have a better MFD and just not focus to infinity. Kind of weird but I feel like infinity focus is rarely needed on a lens like that.
No, because a small improvement in MFD would result in a large loss of range in the long distance end.
