ChrisMak wrote:
I am not sure it works that way, as your subjects are going to be much further away and the surroundings will be much closer relatively than when shooting e.g. a portrait with a 150mm lens. I already find 700mm f8 to be a hard combo to get an attractive separation when shooting birds/wildlife further out.
But for sports, which does seem to be Canon's turf, it might work out well, as the subjects will be much larger in the frame and have lots or at least sufficient free space around them. I am betting these are sports oriented lenses, not so much for wildlife or birding close to dusk or dawn....Show more →
600mm at f/11, 300/5.6, and 150/2.8 all require the same minimum diameter front element of about 54.5mm. Obviously if you don't like 700mm at f/8, you're not going to like 600 at f/11, but I tested 85/1.4 vs 200/2.8. Pretty similar front element/aperture diameter.
I liked the 200mm better, IIRC, because the narrow field allows you to get a certain bg more easily, for instance oof green instead of being able to see the shape of a tree. Also the green on the tree is spread out more. I really saw this comparing 50mm macro vs 180, although I can't recall if I equalized the apertures. I probably didn't. But I generally prefer the longer 180. Really obliterates the bg , smooths it. I should probably try f/3.5 on the 50 and f/13 on the 180
600mm f/11 is about 54.5mm vs 100/2 being 50mm. Plus the longer FL , so you should be able to eliminate a bg much more easily using 600/11.
Here's a question....if one can get past the f/11....would anyone on here opt for the 600 over the 800?
We know from the patent (unless it changed later) that the 600 is about 5.5cm shorter than the 800. And the 600 will have a smaller front element and presumably be lighter and less expensive.
The RF mount to sensor distance is 20mm so from the patent the 800 would be 37cm long and the 600 31.5cm long.
I don't think I'd ever go for the 600 in this class of lens. Certainly would have considered a 600 f/8 that could accept the RF 1.4TC.
arbitrage wrote:
Here's a question....if one can get past the f/11....would anyone on here opt for the 600 over the 800?
We know from the patent (unless it changed later) that the 600 is about 5.5cm shorter than the 800. And the 600 will have a smaller front element and presumably be lighter and less expensive.
The RF mount to sensor distance is 20mm so from the patent the 800 would be 37cm long and the 600 31.5cm long.
I don't think I'd ever go for the 600 in this class of lens. Certainly would have considered a 600 f/8 that could accept the RF 1.4TC....Show more →
No interest at all for me. Maybe the f8 versions more so the 800 at f8
When I first saw these I had no interest in them (I have a 600 f4 II) but as I've been requested to do more video I'm thinking they may work quite well for that.
arbitrage wrote:
Here's a question....if one can get past the f/11....would anyone on here opt for the 600 over the 800?
We know from the patent (unless it changed later) that the 600 is about 5.5cm shorter than the 800. And the 600 will have a smaller front element and presumably be lighter and less expensive.
The RF mount to sensor distance is 20mm so from the patent the 800 would be 37cm long and the 600 31.5cm long.
I don't think I'd ever go for the 600 in this class of lens. Certainly would have considered a 600 f/8 that could accept the RF 1.4TC....Show more →
If Sony didn't already have a great value 200-600mm with better aperture range, maybe. But Sony does have that lens and a great camera in the A9. Canon isn't going to win that battle with f/11 lenses. Even the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm are more likely to draw away from an f/11 lens.
arbitrage wrote:
Here's a question....if one can get past the f/11....would anyone on here opt for the 600 over the 800?
We know from the patent (unless it changed later) that the 600 is about 5.5cm shorter than the 800. And the 600 will have a smaller front element and presumably be lighter and less expensive.
The RF mount to sensor distance is 20mm so from the patent the 800 would be 37cm long and the 600 31.5cm long.
I don't think I'd ever go for the 600 in this class of lens. Certainly would have considered a 600 f/8 that could accept the RF 1.4TC....Show more →
800 or bust. If I'm buying an f/11 lens, I want all the reach I can get so long as the 600mm is not noticeably sharper.
AvianScott wrote:
800 or bust. If I'm buying an f/11 lens, I want all the reach I can get so long as the 600mm is not noticeably sharper.
+1 on all counts.
If they both performed the same including IQ then the 800 would be the only one I'd even consider being stuck @ f/11.
Perhaps the question should be... If someone offered either one of these to you for free, which would you choose?
f/11 is awful hard to swallow no matter how you slice it.
A run and gun light weight and small hiking wildlife lens is the only appeal these have to me. And only if they perform well at a ridiculously low price.
Golden hour shooting would be completely off the table.
arbitrage wrote:
Here's a question....if one can get past the f/11....would anyone on here opt for the 600 over the 800?
We know from the patent (unless it changed later) that the 600 is about 5.5cm shorter than the 800. And the 600 will have a smaller front element and presumably be lighter and less expensive.
The RF mount to sensor distance is 20mm so from the patent the 800 would be 37cm long and the 600 31.5cm long.
I don't think I'd ever go for the 600 in this class of lens. Certainly would have considered a 600 f/8 that could accept the RF 1.4TC. ...Show more → AvianScott wrote:
800 or bust. If I'm buying an f/11 lens, I want all the reach I can get so long as the 600mm is not noticeably sharper.
lighthound wrote:
+1 on all counts.
If they both performed the same including IQ then the 800 would be the only one I'd even consider being stuck @ f/11.
Perhaps the question should be... If someone offered either one of these to you for free, which would you choose?
f/11 is awful hard to swallow no matter how you slice it.
A run and gun light weight and small hiking wildlife lens is the only appeal these have to me. And only if they perform well at a ridiculously low price.
Golden hour shooting would be completely off the table.
f/11 is just too slow. I'm probably going to use the 200-600 if I can ever use a lens in 2021.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Ok all you wildlife gurus, how many times do you stop down to f/11. I have it on good authority from someone at Canon rumours it's all the time as they look to justify these lenses.
I shoot almost nothing else except wildlife and shoot probably 99% of my shots wide open unless there is a specific reason I need greater DOF. That's 400 f2.8, 135 f1.8, 24 f1.4, etc. Those apertures are a huge part of the way I shoot, when I shoot, etc. and I can't imagine what it would be like to be forced to shoot at f11 on a 45 MP sensor.
If these f11 lenses become a reality, it will be really interesting to see what the market will be for such lenses. This would be prioritizing reach (and some carryability) above all else.
2xbass wrote:
I shoot almost nothing else except wildlife and shoot probably 99% of my shots wide open unless there is a specific reason I need greater DOF. That's 400 f2.8, 135 f1.8, 24 f1.4, etc. Those apertures are a huge part of the way I shoot, when I shoot, etc. and I can't imagine what it would be like to be forced to shoot at f11 on a 45 MP sensor.
If these f11 lenses become a reality, it will be really interesting to see what the market will be for such lenses. This would be prioritizing reach (and some carryability) above all else....Show more →
There are always going to be people who want big reach but don't have $12k laying around or can't lug a giant lens and tripod up a mountain. Of course they'll never match the look of a Big White, but being newly designed primes, they'll likely be pretty sharp. I look forward to seeing samples.
These could make nice air show lenses. You can never have enough reach and if you're shooting prop planes or helicopters, you're stopped down anyway and panning which blurs the background.
arbitrage wrote:
Here's a question....if one can get past the f/11....would anyone on here opt for the 600 over the 800?
We know from the patent (unless it changed later) that the 600 is about 5.5cm shorter than the 800. And the 600 will have a smaller front element and presumably be lighter and less expensive.
The RF mount to sensor distance is 20mm so from the patent the 800 would be 37cm long and the 600 31.5cm long.
I don't think I'd ever go for the 600 in this class of lens. Certainly would have considered a 600 f/8 that could accept the RF 1.4TC....Show more →
If the 800 works out very well, and the 600 is dirt cheap and collapsible to 15-20 cm length, I might get the 600 in addition to the 800 as a toy lens / gap filler between a 70-200 and the 800. But never the 600 alone and not the 800.
arbitrage wrote:
Here's a question....if one can get past the f/11....would anyone on here opt for the 600 over the 800?
We know from the patent (unless it changed later) that the 600 is about 5.5cm shorter than the 800. And the 600 will have a smaller front element and presumably be lighter and less expensive.
The RF mount to sensor distance is 20mm so from the patent the 800 would be 37cm long and the 600 31.5cm long.
I don't think I'd ever go for the 600 in this class of lens. Certainly would have considered a 600 f/8 that could accept the RF 1.4TC....Show more →
Basically - as AmbientMike already mentioned above - the size of the front element indicates the maximum background blur you can obtain; that would make the 600 less attractive to me compared to the 800. The real question is how these lenses compare to alternatives like e.g. a 5.6/400 with TC or in case of the 600 maybe even a cheap 70-300 zoom with TC, both regarding optics quality, size/weight and mechanics like AF speed, IS performance, accurate MF control etc. A long lens is a hassle to carry unless they have a very clever folding design, and such folding designs may increase weight and optical alignment problems (especially in long lenses).
Seems to me that Nikon made a FAR better spec choice with their PF lenses.
lighthound wrote:
Well then I've had it with the Canon cripple hammer! My lowly 6DII is apparently severely flawed because the AF had no problem in very crappy light at f/22 on this shot last weekend.
6D Mark II
EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +1.4x III
ƒ/22
140mm
1/50
ISO 1600
6D Mark II
EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +1.4x III
ƒ/16
560mm
1/80
ISO 1600
Not that any of that matters because the shots are destroyed by the notoriously pathetic DR of the 6DII anyhow.
I wish Canon would get their act together and actually make a camera that people can reliably use and take a few decent snap shots with.
I'm switching to Sony by god! Enough is enough! ...Show more →
Nice shot, but stopping down for close-up is something altogether different to stopping down for subjects at large distances.
Well while R5 may get me back to owning a Canon camera, for the last three years I discovered the joy of using Nikon D500 and Sony A9, both of which are markedly better than any Canon camera I've used including 1DX for AF reliability. Also these long lens RF options aren't giving me confidence. I wish they'd publish a damn lens roadmap so I could see if they actually have something like a 600 f/5.6 DO or 800 f/8 DO down the track not to mention 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. I'm not jumping aboard until I know these super slow lenses aren't the only offerings. Currently I have the Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF and if they release a 600 f/5.6 PF I'm never leaving.
technic wrote:
Basically - as AmbientMike already mentioned above - the size of the front element indicates the maximum background blur you can obtain; that would make the 600 less attractive to me compared to the 800. The real question is how these lenses compare to alternatives like e.g. a 5.6/400 with TC or in case of the 600 maybe even a cheap 70-300 zoom with TC, both regarding optics quality, size/weight and mechanics like AF speed, IS performance, accurate MF control etc. A long lens is a hassle to carry unless they have a very clever folding design, and such folding designs may increase weight and optical alignment problems (especially in long lenses).
Seems to me that Nikon made a FAR better spec choice with their PF lenses....Show more →
I agree that generally a different spec, a bit shorter and brighter for the same lens class, would be more appealing. However these long designs may in theory give better image quality than using a teleconverter on f/5.6 to f/8 lenses. It is not impossible that the image quality of the RF 800 f/11 DO will be better than the 500/5.6 PF with the 1,7X TC or a Sigma 150-600 with 1.4X TC. So for the really long shots these new f/11 DO lenses have the potential to deliver the best image quality to cost or weight ratio. But then the image quality must not be like the 70-300 DO at 300 mm f/5.6.
alundeb wrote:
I agree that generally a different spec, a bit shorter and brighter for the same lens class, would be more appealing. However these long designs may in theory give better image quality than using a teleconverter on f/5.6 to f/8 lenses. It is not impossible that the image quality of the RF 800 f/11 DO will be better than the 500/5.6 PF with the 1,7X TC or a Sigma 150-600 with 1.4X TC. So for the really long shots these new f/11 DO lenses have the potential to deliver the best image quality to cost or weight ratio. But then the image quality must not be like the 70-300 DO at 300 mm f/5.6. ...Show more →
Not impossible that they are better than a traditional tele prime with TC, but it would require a significant jump in DO production technology. DO usually doesn't produce the highest quality optics due to imperfections and stability problems in the diffractive optics element that are almost unavoidable with current production technology for big DO elements. It could possibly be circumvented with technologies like 3D printing, but AFAIK that is still only used for really small DO stuff like microscope lenses. As these seem to be low-cost options (i.e. not like the 4/400DO II) I don't expect competitive IQ, more something for "getting the shot" like with the 55-250STM. And if these are more expensive like $3000 or so, I don't see the market potential with just f/11 aperture.
technic wrote:
Not impossible that they are better than a traditional tele prime with TC, but it would require a significant jump in DO production technology. DO usually doesn't produce the highest quality optics due to imperfections and stability problems in the diffractive optics element that are almost unavoidable with current production technology for big DO elements. It could possibly be circumvented with technologies like 3D printing, but AFAIK that is still only used for really small DO stuff like microscope lenses. As these seem to be low-cost options (i.e. not like the 4/400DO II) I don't expect competitive IQ, more something for "getting the shot" like with the 55-250STM. And if these are more expensive like $3000 or so, I don't see the market potential with just f/11 aperture....Show more →
The 55-250 STM is no slouch, comparable in image quality at 250 mm f/5.6 (wide open) to the 400/4 DO II + 1.4X TC on the 7DII.
technic wrote:
Maybe focusing is not a problem for completely static subjects, but moving subjects will be a big problem on almost any body. My 80D with 100-400II and 1.4TCIII is slow to acquire focus and unsuitable for most moving subjects (really big BIFs in perfect light moving in the right direction might work though).
It's your 80D that is the problem. You'd be amazed by a 5DIV and even a 5DSR is better.
