padam19 wrote:
Not like that, no.
There will probably be a new RF 600mm f/4 DO lens at some point (and I wouldn't rule out an 800mm f/5.6 either, 300mm f/2.8 isn't that young either), but they will not rush it and pricing will be inevitably higher on that one.
Since Nikon did not upgrade their 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 lenses to the same level as Canon, I would expect them to come out with the mirrorless equivalents earlier than Canon.
How about a Z600mm f5.6S?
The Z S-line lenses are very, very sharp with lots of detail and a very nice rendering. I would assume that with the right AF hardware a Nikon Z600S on the coming Z7s would be a much more enticing proposition than the 600 and 800F11 lenses on a 4500,- body
arbitrage wrote:
Is there still hope for this one?
Arbitrage..(I think your name is Geoff!)...you obviously are incredible with your bird photography and have great experience with all of the major brands of equipment, and I take it that you really like the Canon 400 DO II lens. Do you mind briefly explaining why? And in your estimation how does it compare with the Nikon 500 PF/300PF lenses? Obviously the 400 DO II is a lot more expensive and so one would hope that offers better optical qualities.
BTW, I hope that Canon introduces some higher end DO lenses for the RF lineup. One would think that would eventually happen.
ChrisMak wrote:
How about a Z600mm f5.6S?
The Z S-line lenses are very, very sharp with lots of detail and a very nice rendering. I would assume that with the right AF hardware a Nikon Z600S on the coming Z7s would be a much more enticing proposition than the 600 and 800F11 lenses on a 4500,- body
Of course, it would be at least 4600$ though, so proportionally more than the 2 extra stops of light compared to the 600mm f/11 DO for a mere 700$
If we compare the Nikon 800/5.6 FL to the Canon 800/11 DO the difference is even more brutal for those 2 extra stops, it is 900$ versus 16200$ nice!
I am sure the Nikon is a lot sharper and the AF is a lot faster as well. It should be for that kind of money.
But ain't that exciting for those who can't justify the cost and don't fancy heavier gear...
padam19 wrote:
Of course, it would be at least 4600$ though, so proportionally more than the 2 extra stops of light compared to the 600mm f/11 DO for a mere 700$
If we compare the Nikon 800/5.6 FL to the Canon 800/11 DO the difference is even more brutal for those 2 extra stops, it is 900$ versus 16200$ nice!
I am sure the Nikon is a lot sharper and the AF is a lot faster as well. It should be for that kind of money.
But ain't that exciting for those who can't justify the cost and don't fancy heavier gear...
True, both 600/11 and 800/11 lenses are an unexpected move by Canon, but should be very nice when used in very good light. It is just an odd idea to spend 4500,- on a body for these lenses. Nikon has the 3000,- Z7 at 46mp, and even the 800,- Z50 when you want to go really low with equivalent pixel density.
I sold the Canon 400DOII reluctantly, mostly because the R-line has no 1.6x crop option a la 7DII, forcing you to go up FF, but then you sacrifice a lot of pixel density, unless you spend 4500,- on a R5.
I find the system lacks balance of bodies and lenses. Still, as a Canon user you have no choice but to embrace the system, unless you want to shoot the aging 7DII forever.
ChrisMak wrote:
True, both 600/11 and 800/11 lenses are an unexpected move by Canon, but should be very nice when used in very good light. It is just an odd idea to spend 4500,- on a body for these lenses. Nikon has the 3000,- Z7 at 46mp, and even the 800,- Z50 when you want to go really low with equivalent pixel density.
I sold the Canon 400DOII reluctantly, mostly because the R-line has no 1.6x crop option a la 7DII, forcing you to go up FF, but then you sacrifice a lot of pixel density, unless you spend 4500,- on a R5.
I find the system lacks balance of bodies and lenses. Still, as a Canon user you have no choice but to embrace the system, unless you want to shoot the aging 7DII forever.
It's still very much a new system, so it's inevitably going to be lacking in terms of lenses (just like Nikon, not to mention Panasonic), and it relies on those old EF lenses for now.
I wonder if the RF teleconverters will work with EF lenses with the adapter.
The extra glass due to the space with the flange probably can improve the performance over the EF III teleconverters, I am just not sure if they implement the correct function with these old lenses.
For instance, m43 teleconverters did work with 43 SLR lenses and m43 adapters with less IQ degradation, but the camera did not know that there was a teleconverter in the chain, so the IBIS worked incorrectly.
Even that's fairly meh, even in the center. That's worse sharpness than the 100-400mm II with a 2X TC attached. I wouldn't expect it to match L glass bare, but to be worse than a zoom lens with a 2x on it is a little disappointing for a prime lens.
Not sure I'd call that "meh" in the center, but whatever. Agree edge sharpness isn't wonderful, but will it even matter? At 800mm its very likely you're photographing animals or the moon, and not landscapes. It might not work for everyone, but given the price differential between this and the 800/5.6L, it will find many buyers.
Jman13 wrote:
Even that's fairly meh, even in the center. That's worse sharpness than the 100-400mm II with a 2X TC attached. I wouldn't expect it to match L glass bare, but to be worse than a zoom lens with a 2x on it is a little disappointing for a prime lens.
No it's better than the 100-400 II + 2X TC.
These are the new type of MTF charts which account for diffraction. The center sharpness of the 800 is truly diffraction limited.
See how the 100-400 II with 2X TC performs in the same type of MTF chart here:
ChrisMak wrote:
True, both 600/11 and 800/11 lenses are an unexpected move by Canon, but should be very nice when used in very good light. It is just an odd idea to spend 4500,- on a body for these lenses. Nikon has the 3000,- Z7 at 46mp, and even the 800,- Z50 when you want to go really low with equivalent pixel density.
I sold the Canon 400DOII reluctantly, mostly because the R-line has no 1.6x crop option a la 7DII, forcing you to go up FF, but then you sacrifice a lot of pixel density, unless you spend 4500,- on a R5.
I find the system lacks balance of bodies and lenses. Still, as a Canon user you have no choice but to embrace the system, unless you want to shoot the aging 7DII forever.
I think the 600 and 800 f11's are aimed directly at the RP and R6 users. They're tiny, cheap and long. Just what the newbie wildlife shooter needs. The 600 in particular seems to me as a perfect emergency tele for a landscape shooter who goes backcountry a fair bit. It's small and cheap.
Lenses like these has this Nikon/Fuji shooter looking hard at the RF system. The 600 is excellent for my light usage of tele's.
deepbluejh wrote:
Looks like the 800 is as good as the 100-400II is at 400mm, without a TC. Decent performance, especially considering the price.
Don't know if you are referring to the charts shown, but that is actually with the 2X even if it says 400 mm.
Looking at the MTF charts for the 100-500 with extenders, it is very close to the 800 at 700 mm with the 1,4X. Looks like the 100-500 will be my choice, but I really want to see images from both.
