johnvanr wrote:
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.
Canon has patents for multiple lens formulas that are kept on file for future use.
Decline of the still camera market has been happening for years.
These f/11 lenses will sell better than any f/4 or f/5.6 counterpart
If you are shooting ducks at water level F11 may give you some opportunities. Try shooting long eared owls (during or just after sunset). Gloomy light is all you get over here. I just had a week with the 1dxIII shooting barn owls in their natural environment. Good luck with that with an F11 lens on a 45mp? Sensor...
It's not a matter of what i want, it's the circumstances i have to work with. And in lots of situations i operate in conditions that meet the limits of what my gear can deal with. Not that i don't enjoy that, i do actually enjoy finding those limits.
And ofcourse, nocturnal owls are one thing, but it also applies to shooting Russian brown bears that mostly feed after sunset, hunting African lions/cheetah/leopards that are active just before sunrise and just after sunset. Not even talking about shooting birds in dense forests like Equador and Costa Rica. So many times i cranked up the iso like crazy to get acceptable SS on a 20mp sensor. Nah man, don't tell me F11 is okay. It is not. Not for me anyway.
therealthings wrote:
If you are shooting ducks at water level F11 may give you some opportunities. Try shooting long eared owls. Gloomy light is all you get over here. I just had a week with the 1dxIII shooting barn owls. Good luck with that with an F11 lens on a 45mp? Sensor...
It's not a matter of what i want, it's the circumstances i have to deal with. And in lots of situations i operate in conditions that meet the limits of what my gear can do. Not that i don't enjoy that, i do actually. But when I'm tired of doing so, i can always go shoot some ducks on the water ofcourse. ...Show more →
Don't worry, the RF 600/4 DO is still coming....some day....maybe....
And no one is telling you f/11 is okay for you. Just pointing out where f/11 can be used for wildlife without much issue.
dolina wrote:
Canon has patents for multiple lens formulas that are kept on file for future use.
Decline of the still camera market has been happening for years.
These f/11 lenses will sell better than any f/4 or f/5.6 counterpart
They sell if they’re really cheap and attract people who otherwise wouldn’t or couldn’t buy a super long fast lens. For long lenses, I see three market segments, in FF: cheap, with obvious compromises, currently covered by Tamron, Sigma and the Nikon 200-500mm; mid-priced, with high quality but non-optimum apertures, currently covered by the Nikon PF lenses; and expensive, currently covered by the f/2.8, f/4 lenses and the f/5.6 800mm lenses.
These new lenses would have to be placed in the low-priced segment to be competitive, whereas I would make f/5.6 500mm and 600mm lenses and a f/8 800mm lens to play in the mid-priced segment if I were Canon.
The one odd lens is the Sony 200-600mm which is cheapish and excellent and delivers a decent aperture. That’s a hard one to beat.
Of course, if you go with smaller sensors, you get more reach for less money but still excellent quality, but low light performance suffers because of the sensor, whereas with f/11 lenses it suffers because of the aperture.
As someone who owns a Canon 500mm f/4, an Olympus 300mm f/4, a Sony 200-600mm and just sold a Nikon 200-500mm and a Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF, I know my preference would be for a decently priced Canon PF competitor to pair with the 5R over any other combo, provided the 5R delivers class-leading CAF. If it doesn’t, no lens matters.
johnvanr wrote:
They sell if they’re really cheap and attract people who otherwise wouldn’t or couldn’t buy a super long fast lens. For long lenses, I see three market segments, in FF: cheap, with obvious compromises, currently covered by Tamron, Sigma and the Nikon 200-500mm; mid-priced, with high quality but non-optimum apertures, currently covered by the Nikon PF lenses; and expensive, currently covered by the f/2.8, f/4 lenses and the f/5.6 800mm lenses.
These new lenses would have to be placed in the low-priced segment to be competitive, whereas I would make f/5.6 500mm and 600mm lenses and a f/8 800mm lens to play in the mid-priced segment if I were Canon.
The one odd lens is the Sony 200-600mm which is cheapish and excellent and delivers a decent aperture. That’s a hard one to beat.
Of course, if you go with smaller sensors, you get more reach for less money but still excellent quality, but low light performance suffers because of the sensor, whereas with f/11 lenses it suffers because of the aperture.
As someone who owns a Canon 500mm f/4, an Olympus 300mm f/4, a Sony 200-600mm and just sold a Nikon 200-500mm and a Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF, I know my preference would be for a decently priced Canon PF competitor to pair with the 5R over any other combo, provided the 5R delivers class-leading CAF. If it doesn’t, no lens matters....Show more →
I think that the ideal lens for the R5 currently is an adapted 400DOII with TCs as needed. That strikes a nice balance. Although I'd also entertain a Canon RF 500/5.6 DO if they made one as I still love my 500PF despite not really loving any of the bodies I own to use it on.
I'm not going to join any pissing contest with anybody. Just try to squeeze out as little juice there is left on the topic. It'll still come down to the fact that any wildlife photographer would choose a f4 over a F11 lens any day. The fact that one 'can' use F11 on 'certain' occasions (which I never denied) doesn't mean that that's desirable. It is far from. Go put a TC on there and see how fast it focuses.
Just for the record. The last time I could shoot a Long eared owl at 1/2500 at -ANY- aperture on ISO 640 was uhm, never. The SS is about right for these owls in flight, but it usually starts at ISO 6400 F4/F5.6 and quickly need to dial up to 8k, 10k which I rather stay away from.
Shorties are a different breed and hunt in much better light.
therealthings wrote:
Just for the record. The last time I could shoot a Long eared owl at 1/2500 at -ANY- aperture on ISO 640 was uhm, never. The SS is about right for these owls in flight, but it usually starts at ISO 6400 F4/F5.6 and quickly need to dial up to 8k, 10k which I rather stay away from.
I agree. Shooting birds also even in good light in the dense bush with 100-400+ 1.4x sees ISO's skyrocket 12800+ is common. Luckily we have Topaz Denoise AI these days. As you said you can always stop down if needed, with a faster lens.
Anyway I get that we need more affordable options than a 600 f/4, but to me that means 600 f/5.6 or 800 f/8 and also zooms like 200-600 f/4.5-6.3. For $2K you are not going to do much better than the Sony zoom and the IQ is still excellent with 1.4x. But Canon decides to go 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 essentially just making a 100-400 +1.4x that cuts off at 500mm rather than 560mm. I highly doubt a 800 f/11 DO will be much cheaper than $2K.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I agree. Shooting birds also even in good light in the dense bush with 100-400+ 1.4x sees ISO's skyrocket 12800+ is common. Luckily we have Topaz Denoise AI these days. As you said you can always stop down if needed, with a faster lens.
Anyway I get that we need more affordable options than a 600 f/4, but to me that means 600 f/5.6 or 800 f/8 and also zooms like 200-600 f/4.5-6.3. For $2K you are not going to do much better than the Sony zoom and the IQ is still excellent with 1.4x. But Canon decides to go 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 essentially just making a 100-400 +1.4x that cuts off at 500mm rather than 560mm. I highly doubt a 800 f/11 DO will be much cheaper than $2K....Show more →
A Sony like 200-600 would have been applauded by many Canon folks. Including the brand agnostic me. I think my girlfriend would have loved to get one. The 100-500 does not appeal in any way when there is an excellent 100-400 II.
therealthings wrote:
It'll still come down to the fact that any wildlife photographer would choose a f4 over a F11 lens any day.
Has anyone actually said anything to the contrary throughout this entire thread? I don't think anyone would argue with you on that point other than to bring up the cost caveat. I've been shooting a 600/4 since I took up bird photography in 2012...no argument about what the best lens for bird photography is.
You just wait and see what Pius and I bring back from this Saturday's f/11 shootout...forecast: Cloudy with 60% of rain.....
I just wish I had a D6 for it....
