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.
Shorties are a different breed and hunt in much better light.
Understood...I realize LEOs hunt later (usually after sunset) in most areas...probably why I've never seen the ones at my SEO location off of their roosts.
You can certainly experiment getting by with a slower SS than 1/2500.
There are certainly places where I think I could take a 600 f/11 and get great shots. Not as much blurred background but I am 50% bird photographer and 50% twitcher and for the latter I mostly care more about sharp shots. Places like Darwin in the dry season for example where there is so much sun and lots of golden hour light. Then again there are places like darker rainforests where I'd much rather have the 500pf.
cpe1991 wrote:
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.
If the price is acceptable and the closeup image quality is really good (maybe using extension ring when MFD is insufficient) I might even be interested, but I consider that possibility extremely unlikely. Also, I don't have much hope for closeup image quality of long zooms, my experience is that traditional long primes have better closeup IQ and more importantly much better working distance (the 100-400 set at 400mm is just 200mm near MFD).
By the time these new DO lenses are available I will probably have moved to Nikon, using their 300PF and 500PF lenses (new gear decision on hold because there are too few opportunities in my area for dragonflies due to changing weather patterns, general nature destruction and lockdown idiocy; plus insufficient clarity from Canikon about where they are going).
technic wrote:
If the price is acceptable and the closeup image quality is really good (maybe using extension ring when MFD is insufficient) I might even be interested, but I consider that possibility extremely unlikely. Also, I don't have much hope for closeup image quality of long zooms, my experience is that traditional long primes have better closeup IQ and more importantly much better working distance (the 100-400 set at 400mm is just 200mm near MFD).
By the time these new DO lenses are available I will probably have moved to Nikon, using their 300PF and 500PF lenses (new gear decision on hold because there are too few opportunities in my area for dragonflies due to changing weather patterns, general nature destruction and lockdown idiocy; plus insufficient clarity from Canikon about where they are going)....Show more →
I now shoot a lot with the D500 (and D850) + 500mm PF. The MFD is ~3m but the image is so sharp and the depth of field deeper at that distance that I find it good for dragonflies as well as being unbeatable in its price range for BIF. I bought mine at the beginning of the year used at very low prices, but the used market appears to have dried up.
I wanted to try and get a picture in my head of how long these lenses will be based off the patents. I've subtracted the 2cm of mount to sensor distance to get a physical lens length as the patents are typically length to the sensor itself.
Adjusted for length to mount and not sensor:
600/11 DO: 314.97mm or 12.4"
800/11 DO: 369.25mm or 14.5"
A few comparison lengths:
Sony 200-600: 12.5"
Nikon 500PF: 9.33"
Canon 400 f.2.8 III: 13.5"
Canon 400DOII: 9.16"
Canon 400DOII/2xTCIII(800 f/8): 11.26"
Canon 600III: 17.64"
Canon 800L: 18.15"
Conclusion: Long, skinny lenses....
Oh...and the lens they should have made: 600 f/8 DO: 11.78"
The slower the aperture the shorter the lens for a given FL, since you have to maintain FoV. If you have a bigger aperture (entry pupil) and since the same FL has to have the same FoV, then you need a longer lens to achieve this. No surprise a 600 f/11 is much shorter than the 600 f/4. 400 f/5.6 is much shorter than a 400 f/2.8, 200 f/2.8 is shorter than a 200 f/2 etc.
arbitrage wrote:
I guess to be fair I should also add the 0.9" of the EF/RF adapter to the EF lengths....
I still say my preferred lens for the R5 based on current lenses available is the adapted 400DOII with TCs as needed.
Well luckily I still have my 500 f/4L II, as that will be my goto lens for the R5, 1000 f/8, 25% more reach and 1 stop faster than 800 f/11, means 1.64 stops better ISO performance. Of course the 800 f/11 will probably only weigh 1.2-1.5kg.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The slower the aperture the shorter the lens for a given FL, since you have to maintain FoV. If you have a bigger aperture (entry pupil) and since the same FL has to have the same FoV, then you need a longer lens to achieve this. No surprise a 600 f/11 is much shorter than the 600 f/4. 400 f/5.6 is much shorter than a 400 f/2.8, 200 f/2.8 is shorter than a 200 f/2 etc.
You have a point, but I would have thought that the DO element helps with the length also. I would expect PetKal's dream lens 800 mm f/5.6 DO to be shorter than this 800 mm f/11 DO. I hope the length indicates high image quality and not only low cost.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well luckily I still have my 500 f/4L II, as that will be my goto lens for the R5, 1000 f/8, 25% more reach and 1 stop faster than 800 f/11, means 1.64 stops better ISO performance. Of course the 800 f/11 will probably only weigh 1.2-1.5kg.
Or pick up a 600III which is even lighter than the 500II and gets you another 20% more reach
alundeb wrote:
You have a point, but I would have thought that the DO element helps with the length also. I would expect PetKal's dream lens 800 mm f/5.6 DO to be shorter than this 800 mm f/11 DO. I hope the length indicates high image quality and not only low cost.
Given we've seen the 600/4 DO prototype, which if you compare to the known thickness of the 1DX it is mounted on, looks shorter than a 400/2.8 and typically the 600/4 and 800/5.6 are similar lengths...I'd say the 600/4 DO is still my dream lens for the RF system....
arbitrage wrote:
Given we've seen the 600/4 DO prototype, which if you compare to the known thickness of the 1DX it is mounted on, looks shorter than a 400/2.8 and typically the 600/4 and 800/5.6 are similar lengths...I'd say the 600/4 DO is still my dream lens for the RF system....
I don't have a dream lens, but would want something that starts above 400 mm, is less expensive than the 300 2.8 II, and better at 800mm than any of the Canon compatible zooms with teleconverters. You can say I may have got my wish, so what is there to complain about?
arbitrage wrote:
Given we've seen the 600/4 DO prototype, which if you compare to the known thickness of the 1DX it is mounted on, looks shorter than a 400/2.8 and typically the 600/4 and 800/5.6 are similar lengths...I'd say the 600/4 DO is still my dream lens for the RF system....
If it is as good as the 400DOII.....
It's quite a leap though, from 600mm f11 to 600mm f4, I wonder if it will ever materialize...
At less than 2kg & less than $2,700 I think it will sell very well.
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 →
cpe1991 wrote:
I now shoot a lot with the D500 (and D850) + 500mm PF. The MFD is ~3m but the image is so sharp and the depth of field deeper at that distance that I find it good for dragonflies as well as being unbeatable in its price range for BIF. I bought mine at the beginning of the year used at very low prices, but the used market appears to have dried up.
Sure sounds like a great combo for dragonflies, but I think I would primarily use the 300PF because I prefer flying ones and that is probably difficult with the 500 (just finding the subject quick enough in the viewfinder ...). I had planned to purchase a D500 with PF lenses this spring, but it's a bad dragonfly season due to epic drought and the lockdown conditions are creating additional trouble. D500's are too expensive over here (either new or used) but maybe prices will come down in summer?
I guess one could use the 500PF with a small extension ring (like 25-36 mm) and still have excellent image quality; for dragonflies I don't need focus to infinity
