I get the feeling these are gateway products. They offer small/compact supertelephotos at likely lower prices to introduce new enthusiasts to supertelephoto photography. They aren't necessarily trying to sell these lenses to enthusiasts currently posting in the nature and wildlife forum, they are looking for fresh fish. People clamping a telephoto adapter to their cell phone will have a real light/compact camera option.
I kind of see Canon running the Sony playbook. Sony didn't offer supertelephotos when the E mount was first introduced, but with the A9 and 100-400 with teleconverters, a lot of enthusiasts took the hook. Then they added the 400/2.8, and were successful. Adding the 200-600, I think really set the hook, and now people are trying to track down used the 600/4's, to avoid waiting for new availability. Really an amazing example of marketing and product development.
They took a more high end approach, aimed more towards the existing enthusiast, but if the R5 is the camera it's being hyped to be, I can see Canon looking down that path. The big whites will come, it didn't happen overnight with Sony, it won't for Canon either.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes, I certainly agree that I'd rather have an RF 200-600 f/6.3 like the Sony and have the option when to push it out to 840 f/9 and 1200 f/14 rather then be stuck at 800/11 all the time. I guess the only possible benefit is if I always needed 800 anyways and the 800/11 was a much smaller, lighter and cheaper option. The Sony 2-6 is rather large and heavy but decently priced. I would never pay more for an 800/11 vs what I paid for the 200-600 so Canon better be bringing these two lenses out under $2K USD....Show more →
A modern 400 f/5.6 DO IS IMO would cost close to $2K, so an 800 f/11 would cost a bit more, it's physically longer, so maybe they could do it for $2K at minimum but I suspect it could be $2500. Still would rather have the 200-600 too and use a 1.4x and be 2/3rd stop faster for 5% more reach, than be stuck at f/11.
I hope they have 600 f/5.6 and/or 800 f/8 DO in the pipeline. Still the R5 has to prove itself with AF. If it can't match the D850/D500 then it has little appeal. If it's as good as the 1DXIII is in LV mode, then it could be very competitive with even the A9 other than EVF blackout as I assume one would only really use mechanical shutter for action due to slowish sensor read speed.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
A modern 400 f/5.6 DO IS IMO would cost close to $2K, so an 800 f/11 would cost a bit more, it's physically longer, so maybe they could do it for $2K at minimum but I suspect it could be $2500. Still would rather have the 200-600 too and use a 1.4x and be 2/3rd stop faster for 5% more reach, than be stuck at f/11.
I agree and disagree. I agree that a 400 f/5.6 DO IS would cost in the $2k range, however, that would likely be an L lens with USM focus. The 800mm f/11 is not an L lens and uses the slower STM focus and will thus be priced accordingly. I'm guessing it will start sub-$2k, probably in the $1799 range. I'll be disappointed and it will immediately become a non-buy for me if priced any higher.
A Canon 800/5.6 is approximately $13 now, Nikon's is somewhat newer lens is priced at $16k. A two stops slower lens with high quality would likely be around one quarter of the price, so about $3k-$4k. A light-weight design increases its utility and value thus it is not likely to show as a reduced price. An 800mm lens is an extremely specialized, niche product.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
A Canon 800/5.6 is approximately $13 now, Nikon's is somewhat newer lens is priced at $16k. A two stops slower lens with high quality would likely be around one quarter of the price, so about $3k-$4k. A light-weight design increases its utility and value thus it is not likely to show as a reduced price. An 800mm lens is an extremely specialized, niche product.
$3-4K would be a ridiculous price level IMHO for an f/11 lens that isn't L class (= STM focus, lighter construction, probably no environmental sealing, maybe less capable IS system, probably poor manual focus control etc.).
Look at the 600mm: take a Nikon 4/300PF, add a 2x TC and you have a very compact f/8 (not f/11) 600mm for $2-2.5K and FAR more versatile because it starts at 300mm f/4 and is one stop brighter at 600mm. Stop down one stop and I doubt that Canon 11/600 will provide much better IQ that justifies the higher price and slow aperture.
There are no recent 400mm lenses with modest aperture and IS to compare with, but one could take a Tamron 100-400 VC and add a 2x TC making an 800mm max lens with IS that is f/13 instead of f/11 but only a little above $1000; and maybe smaller too than the Canon 11/800. The IQ of these new DO lenses needs to be stellar if they want to ask more than $2K.
arbitrage wrote:
There will still be opportunities to get clean backgrounds even at f/11. Shooting on the ground at water's edge for waterfowl usually won't matter what aperture if you are low enough and far shoreline is far enough. Also if one is patient to allow the bird to perch on an outer limb with distant background then you can get a clean shot at f/11 without issue.
There will be opportunities yes, but they are very slim. Wildlife says it all, it's wild and often does not play your game, even for hide photography. They always sit where you don't want them to be, and that decisive moment usually lasts for a few seconds. Been there too many times. I was really hoping for canon to release the 600 F4 DO in RF mount.
therealthings wrote:
There will be opportunities yes, but they are very slim. Wildlife says it all, it's wild and often does not play your game, even for hide photography. They always sit where you don't want them to be, and that decisive moment usually lasts for a few seconds. Been there too many times. I was really hoping for canon to release the 600 F4 DO in RF mount.
Yes, and while shooting from very low position at the water's edge often provides clean or interesting backgrounds, I doubt it will work well with such long focal length. Above the water thermals and related issues are a big problem for image quality, in my area they already tend to show up at 200mm focal length and just a few meters subject distance ...
ilkka_nissila wrote:
A Canon 800/5.6 is approximately $13 now, Nikon's is somewhat newer lens is priced at $16k. A two stops slower lens with high quality would likely be around one quarter of the price, so about $3k-$4k. A light-weight design increases its utility and value thus it is not likely to show as a reduced price. An 800mm lens is an extremely specialized, niche product.
For thirteen bucks, who would buy anything new?
Personally I just don't get the F11 thing. You would need to be shooting in bright light to keep shutter speed up. I mean I guess they could hope to sell one to every person that goes to air shows.
600 f/11 and 800 f/11 is a big time head scratcher.
A 600 f/8 DO IS in the vain of the OG 400 f/5.6L seems like a HUGE missed opportunity. You aren't stuck at f/11 all the time, 840 f/11 is on the table for you with a 1.4 TC, and you could still keep the size in the range of the old 400L (i.e. 77mm diameter and 1.5-ish kg, maybe even less with RF mount sorcery).
We also have a 20mp sensor being released on the R6 here in 2020 which has had everyone scratching their heads.
Here's a thought.
What if the R6 turns out to be some kind of incredible low light high ISO monster at a very aggressive price?
The mp certainly suggest that it would be, but what if Canon has pulled off some type of sensor tech that allows for clean high detailed ISO 12800 range type of images.
Yeah I know, but what if?
So this would eliminate the concern of shooting f/11 from a light stand point such that one could hypothetically still shoot in low light.
Ok sure, but what about busy BG and the difficulty of subject isolation that is only achieved by narrower DOF fast glass?
So again, what if?
What if these f/11 lenses utilized a DS technology type coatings like the RF 85/1.2 DS has?
I'm not even sure if this DS technology works the same way on long slow glass as it does on fast glass, but could this not be a possible way to then correct for the deep DOF of long lenses?
Or can this DS tech only work to a limited extent on fast glass?
Just seems odd to me that Canon is releasing several perplexing products on the heals of what many are calling the "greatest camera in decades" and other high praised descriptions for the R5.
Something just isn't making sense which leads me to believe maybe we're missing some very key factors (surprises) in all this.
We also have a 20mp sensor being released on the R6 here in 2020 which has had everyone scratching their heads.
Here's a thought.
What if the R6 turns out to be some kind of incredible low light high ISO monster at a very aggressive price?
The mp certainly suggest that it would be, but what if Canon has pulled off some type of sensor tech that allows for clean high detailed ISO 12800 range type of images.
Yeah I know, but what if?
So this would eliminate the concern of shooting f/11 from a light stand point such that one could hypothetically still shoot in low light.
Ok sure, but what about busy BG and the difficulty of subject isolation that is only achieved by narrower DOF fast glass?
So again, what if?
What if these f/11 lenses utilized a DS technology type coatings like the RF 85/1.2 DS has?
I'm not even sure if this DS technology works the same way on long slow glass as it does on fast glass, but could this not be a possible way to then correct for the deep DOF of long lenses?
Or can this DS tech only work to a limited extent on fast glass?
Just seems odd to me that Canon is releasing several perplexing products on the heals of what many are calling the "greatest camera in decades" and other high praised descriptions for the R5.
Something just isn't making sense which leads me to believe maybe we're missing some very key factors (surprises) in all this. ...Show more →
These lenses are about reach, and if you want that it makes ZERO sense to start out with a 20 MP FF sensor.
The R6 with a 11/600 would be at a significant DISadvantage compared to a current APS-C body with 5.6/400 lens (or if you need IS, one of the recent 100-400 zooms), despite higher cost and more weight. Only if that R6 "low light monster" is used in very low light conditions it might have some advantage, but that remains to be seen.
technic wrote:
Yes, and while shooting from very low position at the water's edge often provides clean or interesting backgrounds, I doubt it will work well with such long focal length. Above the water thermals and related issues are a big problem for image quality, in my area they already tend to show up at 200mm focal length and just a few meters subject distance ...
I guess all situations are different. Most of my waterfowl are somewhat skitish ducks and I shoot them at 840 and even 1200 all the time.
Examples of my typical shooting that I do throughout the winter at our local lagoon and these are all crops from the FF image....
f/11 isn't all that bad...just had a look at some of the EXIF of the images I posted above and it would be no problem to take the f/9 and f/8 up to f/11 with useable shifts in ISO and/or SS.
Not sure why people want to shoot in low, gloomy light anyways?? The images just look dull and gloomy. Good images are in golden light and golden light can handle f/11 with acceptable ISO and SS.
600 f/4 1/3200 ISO 320 for this golden light image could easily be adapted to 800 f/11 1/1600 ISO 1250 or 1/800 ISO 640 etc and make a pleasing image.
dolina wrote:
600 f/11 and 800 f/11 makes sense in light of two reasons
2020 being the worst year for still camera market since 2000.
2020 financial crisis caused by coronavirus lockdowns.
Very few people have the disposable income to spend more than $2,700 on a lens much less $12,700.
Sigma, Tamron and Tokina proved that slow, cheap, physically light camera gear sells in volume.
A 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 would be the same diameter as a 70-200 f/4.0 & 70-200 f/2.8 but at 2x the physical length with a weight of 2kg at most.
I doubt that planning for these lenses had anything to do with the lockdowns or that Canon's long-term strategy for its rather low-volume products is based on the current situation.
arbitrage wrote:
I guess all situations are different. Most of my waterfowl are somewhat skitish ducks and I shoot them at 840 and even 1200 all the time.
Most of my shots are over relatively small ponds around noon and in summer. I can imagine it's different in winter and probably the stronger mid-day sun doesn't help with thermals. I'm not sure where the frequent problems with partial image softness when shooting over water come from, as it doesn't always happen and some spots seem to be worse than others, especially with the lens just a few cm above the water surface. When conditions are good I would love to try even longer focal lengths than my current 560mm max. (usually around f/11 effective, out of necessity because of focus and IQ issues with the 100-400).
The low shots over the water sure allow nice background blur. Images below from 80D (APS-C). These examples remind me of another question: do these DO lenses have good MFD (usually doesn't help to keep the lens compact) and good closeup image quality?
technic wrote:
These lenses are about reach, and if you want that it makes ZERO sense to start out with a 20 MP FF sensor.
The R6 with a 11/600 would be at a significant DISadvantage compared to a current APS-C body with 5.6/400 lens (or if you need IS, one of the recent 100-400 zooms), despite higher cost and more weight. Only if that R6 "low light monster" is used in very low light conditions it might have some advantage, but that remains to be seen.
The 600 f/11 seems ridiculous to me. If I were to be locked in at f/11 I would opt for the extra 200mm.
I can think of a few good reasons for a low cost 20 mp body paired with a slow 800mm f/11 lens.
The most obvious would be low noise thanks to those big fat pixels shooting at high ISO. Another would be the lower cost using a less expensive sensor to pair well with lower priced slow lens. And I would imagine a deeper buffer and higher frame rate due to less processing power required.
My 90D can only hits 10fps not 12 fps mechanical and it's not anywhere near 20fps in LV.
I can say the 90D high ISO performance is remarkable in most conditions, especially considering it's class leading high resolution sensor. The noise at high ISO is extremely fine and the details are fantastic. That's until you need to deep crop, then it starts to loose some details and the noise needs to be addressed more aggressively.
There are always trade-offs and I get it. But for life of me, I just don't understand where Canon is going with these head scratching products. One thing is for sure though. We don't have long to wait to finally see WTH they are up to.
technic wrote:
Most of my shots are over relatively small ponds around noon and in summer. I can imagine it's different in winter and probably the stronger mid-day sun doesn't help with thermals. I'm not sure where the frequent problems with partial image softness when shooting over water come from, as it doesn't always happen and some spots seem to be worse than others, especially with the lens just a few cm above the water surface. When conditions are good I would love to try even longer focal lengths than my current 560mm max. (usually around f/11 effective, out of necessity because of focus and IQ issues with the 100-400).
The low shots over the water sure allow nice background blur. Images below from 80D (APS-C). These examples remind me of another question: do these DO lenses have good MFD (usually doesn't help to keep the lens compact) and good closeup image quality?
Beautiful shots! The odds are the mfd will be ~3m. I know you have problems with the 100-400mm II, but it's going to be a difficult one to beat for close focussing. Probably the upcoming 100-500mm f/7.1 is the lens for you if you go R series.
