ilkka_nissila wrote:
No, because a small improvement in MFD would result in a large loss of range in the long distance end.
Some will use these lenses for moon photos.
Yes, that would be my primary use for such a lens; even better with a TC but then the seeing in my area would probably never allow getting the most out of it.
But buying a lens plus R body just for moonshots makes little sense
The minimum focus distance is as expected for a small prime. It does exclude many attractive use cases.
For me, the lens is primarily intended as an infinity landscape lens, with secondary use as a long distance wildlife lens.
The resolving capability at f/11-f/16 is a perfect match for 50-80 MP bodies. The sensor just outresolves the lens, as I want it to be.
At long distance, the resolution is often limited by atmosphere anyway, so there would be diminishing returns from a bigger, heavier and more expensive lens.
Usually I want more DOF not less, and long exposures not short.
The f/11 is not a compromise for this use. It is close to optimal.
The lens just needs to be meaningfully better than the 100-400 II with 2X TC for me to be interesting. And I think it will be, especially away from center.
technic wrote:
But buying a lens plus R body just for moonshots makes little sense
Technically they could have been EF lenses (except for integrated IS), but I understand that they need to make all the new stuff exclusive in order to move people over. Not this lens alone, but what when the same happens across the line. I try not to move before I need to, but there are temptations on the glass side for sure.
alundeb wrote:
Technically they could have been EF lenses (except for integrated IS), but I understand that they need to make all the new stuff exclusive in order to move people over. Not this lens alone, but what when the same happens across the line. I try not to move before I need to, but there are temptations on the glass side for sure.
I understand too, but I'm not tempted because I would need a high pixel density R body like R5 to really profit from such a lens (assuming the IQ is there) compared to current APS-C body with shorter tele. Which means the total cost would be > €6000 or so, an amount I would only consider if it ticks all the boxes (and R5 likely doesn't, for me).
For now I'm more tempted by the Nikon PF lenses but I try to keep my eyes open to other options; for all three major ILC camera companies the future path is murky with some remote lights shining through
alundeb wrote:
Technically they could have been EF lenses (except for integrated IS), but I understand that they need to make all the new stuff exclusive in order to move people over. Not this lens alone, but what when the same happens across the line. I try not to move before I need to, but there are temptations on the glass side for sure.
Also, for viewfinder photography a DSLR cannot autofocus an f/11 lens effectively.
Now confirmed that the TCs are compatible with 600 and 800DO lenses. (and the 100-500 but no other lenses are listed as compatible by Nokishita).
1600/22
The specifications of the Canon Extender "RF1.4x" are 7 elements in 4 groups, size φ71.2x20.3 mm (mount standard)/40.6 mm (total length), and weight 225g. "RF2x" is supposed to be 9 elements in 5 groups, φ71.2x39.3 mm (mounting standard)/60.6 mm (total length), and weight 340 g. In both cases, the compatible lenses are RF100-500mmL, RF600mm, and RF800mm.
Extenders are certainly heavier than Sony with Sony 2x lighter than RF 1.4x (but those DO lenses should make up for it ): 167g vs 225g and 207g vs 340g.
Ralph Conway wrote:
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, aren´t we?
It may not be a deal breaker for bokeh and DOF (as I showed with my examples a few weeks ago) but it is a killer for the SS vs ISO trade off in all but the best light.
Obviously, I'm looking at these new products strictly as a bird photographer but understand that for some other applications like landscapes and moons these lenses would be great.
The packing size of these things is excellent, the weights are good. The extended shooting length is a bit awkward and imagine how long these are with their lens hoods on. The 600 MFD and MM is about typical for a 600/4. The 800 is typical for the EF 800L. But as I mentioned before I've been getting to 800 via 600/4/1.4TC or 400/4/2xTC, 200-600/1.4 or even on the R 100-400/2xTC....with those combinations you get much better MM and can work in tighter quarters (not for the 600/4 but for the other two).
I wish Canon would have made the 600 f/8 instead (patent filed at the time of these patents)...that would have given us the 800/11 option but at a better working distance and better MM.
I think for me the 100-500 with TCs looks to be the better lens for bird photography. You then get a 700 f/10 and 1000 f/14 and a way better working distance and MM. Only a little heavier than the 800DO (110g), shorter to pack and not as awkward when extended. But of course will be much more $$$....
arbitrage wrote:
Now confirmed that the TCs are compatible with 600 and 800DO lenses. (and the 100-500 but no other lenses are listed as compatible by Nokishita).
1600/22
The specifications of the Canon Extender "RF1.4x" are 7 elements in 4 groups, size φ71.2x20.3 mm (mount standard)/40.6 mm (total length), and weight 225g. "RF2x" is supposed to be 9 elements in 5 groups, φ71.2x39.3 mm (mounting standard)/60.6 mm (total length), and weight 340 g. In both cases, the compatible lenses are RF100-500mmL, RF600mm, and RF800mm.
Extenders are certainly heavier than Sony with Sony 2x lighter than RF 1.4x (but those DO lenses should make up for it ): 167g vs 225g and 207g vs 340g....Show more →
The TC's will come in handy for testing purposes. But after the testing I can probably dispose of the 2X.
The 100-500 is still of course a candidate for best image quality at 700-800 mm. If 500 x 1.4 is better than native 800, I will just go with the zoom as the cost of it is not prohibitive for me.
arbitrage wrote:
It may not be a deal breaker for bokeh and DOF (as I showed with my examples a few weeks ago) but it is a killer for the SS vs ISO trade off in all but the best light.
Obviously, I'm looking at these new products strictly as a bird photographer but understand that for some other applications like landscapes and moons these lenses would be great.
The packing size of these things is excellent, the weights are good. The extended shooting length is a bit awkward and imagine how long these are with their lens hoods on. The 600 MFD and MM is about typical for a 600/4. The 800 is typical for the EF 800L. But as I mentioned before I've been getting to 800 via 600/4/1.4TC or 400/4/2xTC, 200-600/1.4 or even on the R 100-400/2xTC....with those combinations you get much better MM and can work in tighter quarters (not for the 600/4 but for the other two).
I wish Canon would have made the 600 f/8 instead (patent filed at the time of these patents)...that would have given us the 800/11 option but at a better working distance and better MM.
I think for me the 100-500 with TCs looks to be the better lens for bird photography. You then get a 700 f/10 and 1000 f/14 and a way better working distance and MM. Only a little heavier than the 800DO (110g), shorter to pack and not as awkward when extended. But of course will be much more $$$.......Show more →
The big surprise will be that there is no visible ISO noise beneath ISO 50K with the R5
technic wrote:
I understand too, but I'm not tempted because I would need a high pixel density R body like R5 to really profit from such a lens (assuming the IQ is there) compared to current APS-C body with shorter tele. Which means the total cost would be > €6000 or so, an amount I would only consider if it ticks all the boxes (and R5 likely doesn't, for me).
For now I'm more tempted by the Nikon PF lenses but I try to keep my eyes open to other options; for all three major ILC camera companies the future path is murky with some remote lights shining through ...Show more →
The optical viewfinder of a DSLR would become very dim at f/11 and a DSLR can’t AF such lenses. A mirrorless is able to boost the viewfinder brightness and it can AF such lenses.
Ralph Conway wrote:
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, aren´t we?
I generally shoot birds at least at 1/1600 if not at 1/2000 of a second. In early morning light, even f/4 is a challenge to get that without too much noise. f/11 would prevent me from shooting in any but the best light conditions (unless Canon's surprise is amazing high-ISO images, beyond what a camera with that kind of resolution normally can produce).
Ralph Conway wrote:
The big surprise will be that there is no visible ISO noise beneath ISO 50K with the R5
In reality modern sensors are so close to ideal sensor quality at high ISO that there is no significant further progress expected in that area due to limitations caused by physics. The light itself (random arrival of photons) creates the noise that is seen in the image at high ISO.
I'd like to see an extender/EF-RF converter all in one unit so that I can convert my existing EF f/4 super telephoto to RF using 1.4x & 2x extenders without having to double-stack the EF-RF converter into an extender. RF extenders for a f/11 lens sounds borderline crazy as I just can't imagine an ISO breakthrough that results in 3-stops cleaner images which would be needed to get back to even with the current f/4 super telephotos. I'd much rather shell out $400-$500 for a new 1.4x EF-RF extender than to have to constantly fumble with the EF-RF adapters.
johnvanr wrote:
I generally shoot birds at least at 1/1600 if not at 1/2000 of a second. In early morning light, even f/4 is a challenge to get that without too much noise. f/11 would prevent me from shooting in any but the best light conditions (unless Canon's surprise is amazing high-ISO images, beyond what a camera with that kind of resolution normally can produce).
Yes, I see the same issue with my flying dragonflies despite those are mostly flying in sunny conditions. I mostly use f/5.6, 1/4000-1/8000s and 1600ISO - which on my 80D already causes significant DR loss and noise, I really don't want to go higher with that camera. When I have to compensate for backlighting or lower light levels I have to compromise more on shutter speed or DOF. I can't remember any time I was able to use f/11 for in-flight shots (equivalent to f/8 on my APS-C body, but even that is rarely used).
John_TX wrote:
I'd like to see an extender/EF-RF converter all in one unit so that I can convert my existing EF f/4 super telephoto to RF using 1.4x & 2x extenders without having to double-stack the EF-RF converter into an extender. RF extenders for a f/11 lens sounds borderline crazy as I just can't imagine an ISO breakthrough that results in 3-stops cleaner images which would be needed to get back to even with the current f/4 super telephotos. I'd much rather shell out $400-$500 for a new 1.4x EF-RF extender than to have to constantly fumble with the EF-RF adapters.
This has been discussed a lot recently. I certainly see the advantage of having one less connection wiggle point.
However, you end up juggling more things in the field when swapping on and off TCs. You still need an EF-RF adapter to use the bare lens. Then you have to take that off, put in bag, pull out the EF-RF-TC and put that on. If one rarely uses their bare lens (reach starved) then it certainly makes sense to me but not if I'm switching frequently between bare lens and TCs.
If one uses standard EF-RF adapter and EF TCs then the adapter just stays glued to the camera body and isn't in the switching equation. So now you only have one thing to juggle (the EF TC) when doing swaps.
Based on the clear evidence shown in these photos, it's very apparent that the Animal eye tracking AF system is going to be top notch on the new RF lenses and bodies.
Why else would Canon have hired Jim Carrey the pet detective.
lighthound wrote:
Based on the clear evidence shown in these photos, it's very apparent that the Animal eye tracking AF system is going to be top notch on the new RF lenses and bodies.
Why else would Canon have hired Jim Carrey the pet detective.
These two images also reveal sockets for tripod mounts.
1600/22 
): 167g vs 225g and 207g vs 340g.
