p.74 #1 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
molson wrote:
Nikon telephotos while totally missing the point that there are other lenses, like the Canon RF 800mm I mentioned earlier, that offer a substantial improvement in MFD, and therefore subject magnification - which I thought really was pretty self-explanatory.
Unfortunately, I don't have the huge amount of cash I would need to splash out for that unicorn Canon lens (nor any interest in switching systems) but in hindsight, a Nikon 400 f2.8 TC or 600mm f4 TC might have been a better option for what I'm shooting, since engaging the internal TC gives them 0.23x and 0.2x magnification respectively, while still maintaining excellent image quality. Budget-wise, I may have to look at the 180-600 as an alternative; I'm not totally sold on that lens, but I did do a lot of hummingbird photography with my Sony 200-600 G with pretty good results....Show more →
It's worth noting that the Canon RF 800mm is literally a Canon RF 400mm/2.8 with a permanently attached 2.0TC and all the disadvantages that come with a design like that (such as no improvement in image quality over a RF 400/2.8 with 2.0TC, but ~$5K USD more expensive and no option to use it as a 400/2.8). That is why it has essentially the same MFD as the RF 400 2.8, because attaching a TC to a lens does not affect MFD. If you put a 2.0TC on the Nikon Z400/2.8 you also get a MFD of ~2.5m, so that would be a more appropriate comparison in this case.
Canon did the exact same thing with the RF 600/4 and their 1200/8 lens as well - that is why the MTFs of the 800mm and 1200mm look so much worse relative to any other exotic lens.
If you look at the Canon EF 800mm/5.6, which is a 'proper' 800mm design, it has a MFD of 6.0m or 19.7ft, which is longer than either Nikon 800mm and quite a bit longer than the 800PF.
The 180-600 is slightly sharper than the Sony 200-600 and with about the same MFD and much better stabilization, so if you like the Sony, you wouldn't be missing out on anything going with the equivalent Nikon version.
p.74 #3 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
molson wrote:
No, it's not...
Actually it is - the sole difference is one element in the TC group has been swapped out with a ULD element to help control CA, which gets worse when you add a TC. It's very well known this is what Canon has done, you can very clearly see it just by looking at the lens, you can also see that is what they've done if you look at the actual lens groupings, that is why the MFDs are the way they are, and you can see it in the MTF charts.
If you can find a shred of evidence that suggests otherwise, please post it
Again, this isn't some theory I have, it's very well known that is how Canon has designed their RF 800mm and 1200mm. Ask your Canon rep, they will tell you the same
Some more light reading for you if you want to see the lens diagrams and MTFs for yourself:
p.74 #4 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
CanadaMark wrote:
Actually it is - the sole difference is one element in the TC group has been swapped out with a ULD element to help control CA, which gets worse when you add a TC. It's very well known this is what Canon has done, you can very clearly see it just by looking at the lens, you can also see that is what they've done if you look at the actual lens groupings, that is why the MFDs are the way they are, and you can see it in the MTF charts.
If you can find a shred of evidence that suggests otherwise, please post it
Again, this isn't some theory I have, it's very well known that is how Canon has designed their RF 800mm and 1200mm. Ask your Canon rep, they will tell you the same
Some more light reading for you if you want to see the lens diagrams and MTFs for yourself:
The Canon RF 800mm f5.6 only has one more lens element than their 400mm f2.8. It's pretty amazing that Canon has developed a single-element teleconverter that delivers that kind of image quality - I wonder when Nikon will get around to copying it?
p.74 #5 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
molson wrote:
The Canon RF 800mm f5.6 only has one more lens element than their 400mm f2.8. It's pretty amazing that Canon has developed a single-element teleconverter that delivers that kind of image quality - I wonder when Nikon will get around to copying it?
Huh? Canon bolted a TC to 400 2.8. There no 'one more lens element difference'.
p.74 #6 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
molson wrote:
The Canon RF 800mm f5.6 only has one more lens element than their 400mm f2.8. It's pretty amazing that Canon has developed a single-element teleconverter that delivers that kind of image quality - I wonder when Nikon will get around to copying it?
Did you bother reading any of the above? The RF 400/2.8 optical design is 17 elements in 13 groups, and the Canon RF 2.0TC has 9 elements in 5 groups. The RF 800/5.6 has 26 elements in 18 groups, which is exactly the same as adding the 2.0TC onto the 400/2.8.
The RF 800/5.6 has 9 extra elements compared to the RF 400/2.8, because the 2.0TC has 9 elements.
I truly hope Nikon doesn't go down that road, you take 95% of the image quality hit from the 2.0TC rather than zero image quality hit with a "native" 800mm lens, but without the flexibility of being able to remove it and use it as a 400/2.8.
A native 800mm design would have a MTF about the same as the other bare exotic lenses, rather than one with the exact same image quality reduction as a 2.0TC. Look at the MTFs for the Nikon 800/5.6 and 800PF, they are most similar to the 400/2.8 and 600/4 because their optical designs do not involve a 2.0TC grouping.
p.74 #7 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
CanadaMark wrote:
Did you bother reading any of the above? The RF 400/2.8 optical design is 17 elements in 13 groups, and the Canon RF 2.0TC has 9 elements in 5 groups. The RF 800/5.6 has 26 elements in 18 groups, which is exactly the same as adding the 2.0TC onto the 400/2.8.
Sorry - when I searched "RF 800mm f5.6" on the Canon Canada website, I didn't realize it was showing me the specs for the EF version, which only has 18 elements.
p.74 #8 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
on top of that - Canon didn't even bother to make any major design changes to RF long glass. Compare the above diagrams to Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM lens and you'll see that the design is exactly the same (+ some space to account for flange distance).
p.74 #9 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
molson wrote:
Sorry - when I searched "RF 800mm f5.6" on the Canon Canada website, I didn't realize it was showing me the EF version, which only has 18 elements.
Fair enough. Anyway, hopefully with the above you can clearly see what Canon has done there.
Long story short, if you want a Canon 800/5.6 or 1200/8, it's hard to think of any reason not to buy the 400mm or 600mm and a 2.0TC instead, especially with the egregious price premiums Canon charges for the bolt-on TC. That way you still get the shorter MFD, but with much more flexibility.
If you wanted to do the same thing in Nikon land, you would just buy a Z400/2.8 and 2.0TC rather than the F800/5.6 or Z800/6.3.
p.74 #10 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
lukemeup wrote:
on top of that - Canon didn't even bother to make any major design changes to RF long glass. Compare the above diagrams to Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM lens and you'll see that the design is exactly the same (+ some space to account for flange distance).
Also correct. They are the old EF designs from ~2018-2019 with mount swaps and the 2.0TC grouping in the case of the 800/1200. I believe they did update the AF motor in the RF design but optically they are all exactly the same.
p.74 #14 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
lukemeup wrote:
It's sort of funny that it's cheaper to buy 400TC + TC2.0 than that 800 RFrankenstein.
Not just by a little bit either - you can almost buy the lens plus TC plus an R3 or an R5 with plenty of money left over with the difference at current pricing. The premiums attached to those lenses are insane given what they've done.
I would love to know how many 800s and 1200s Canon has sold assuming the average customer does a 10 second google search before spending that kind of money.
p.74 #16 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
CanadaMark wrote:
Not just by a little bit either - you can almost buy the lens plus TC plus an R3 or an R5 with plenty of money left over with the difference at current pricing. The premiums attached to those lenses are insane given what they've done.
I would love to know how many 800s and 1200s Canon has sold assuming the average customer does a 10 second google search before spending that kind of money.
I was really bewildered by the Canon RF800mm launch when I saw the price and specs, all the more so since Canon actually had a true 800mm f5.6 lens in the EF mount.
I was a Canon user for a while with the 400DOII and had high regards for Canon's white L lenses, but the way they handled the RF super telephoto releases made me lose a lot of respect for Canon. I put this in the category "corporate greed" that also befell dominant companies like Apple and Nvidia at times...
p.74 #17 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
ChrisMak wrote:
I was really bewildered by the Canon RF800mm launch when I saw the price and specs, all the more so since Canon actually had a true 800mm f5.6 lens in the EF mount.
It is quite puzzling why they would do something like that. Maybe it came from the same person who thought the EOS R touch bar was a great idea...?
p.74 #19 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
molson wrote:
My friend Brad is selling his 180-600, but I think my wife might kill me if I buy that right after getting the 800 PF...
I've been following the last two pages of this thread regarding the 800PF and its minimum focusing limits. To your point @molson ... I photographed both hummingbirds and chipmunks with the 800PF and 180-600 in September prior to the hb migration.
1. There were times when the minimum focus distance did pose a problem, but that was rare. The hummers I photographed did not have a specific target flower or feeder, but a field of flowers from which to choose. As such, I had to find the bird with that narrow field of view, and when the birds were closer, this was very difficult. In the end, I chose, when necessary, to shoot and crop to DX or so size images.
2. The bokeh on 800PF is better than the bokeh on the 180-600 @600. This was significant to me because my backgrounds had flowers and vines.
3. The AF acquisition with the 800PF was quicker to lock on with initial focus.
4. With respect to the 180-600, the lens was/is more flexible to use. It is easier to find the bird, zoom in and maintain its location in the viewfinder.
5. Focus tracking is as good as the 800PF and seemed to have little issues with the flitty flight patterns.
6. I found that I could hand hold the 180-600 much longer than the 800PF and thus move in for tighter shots,
7. In good light, I found the images from the 180-600 indistinguishable from the 800PF, while in low contrast light the 800PF edged out the 180-600.
Disclosure... I recently sold my 800PF/400 f4.5 and replaced them with the 400 f2.8S. I kept the 180-600 and will add a second 1.4x to my 400S when I need the reach an 800PF offers. This is no dig on the lenses that I sold, but was an opportunistic move that I always wanted to make.
p.74 #20 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Great info thank you. I’ve been toying with selling my 800PF and some other lenses I’m not using so much to offset acquisition of the 400TC. I absolutely love the 800 so I’m not in any rush, but just think I’d use the 400 more and would not have to also carry the 100-400.
By some accounts the 400 with 2x TC is similar sharpness well within the DX part of the frame versus the 800PF but is notably softer approaching it and outside of it (according to Thom Hogan and I believe also Brad Hill). As I’m often putting subject close to that area that’s a concern, IF the softening is occurring near the rule of thirds intersections. Would love to hear real-world your thoughts on that.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I've been following the last two pages of this thread regarding the 800PF and its minimum focusing limits. To your point @molson@ ... I photographed both hummingbirds and chipmunks with the 800PF and 180-600 in September prior to the hb migration.
1. There were times when the minimum focus distance did pose a problem, but that was rare. The hummers I photographed did not have a specific target flower or feeder, but a field of flowers from which to choose. As such, I had to find the bird with that narrow field of view, and when the birds were closer, this was very difficult. In the end, I chose, when necessary, to shoot and crop to DX or so size images.
2. The bokeh on 800PF is better than the bokeh on the 180-600 @600. This was significant to me because my backgrounds had flowers and vines.
3. The AF acquisition with the 800PF was quicker to lock on with initial focus.
4. With respect to the 180-600, the lens was/is more flexible to use. It is easier to find the bird, zoom in and maintain its location in the viewfinder.
5. Focus tracking is as good as the 800PF and seemed to have little issues with the flitty flight patterns.
6. I found that I could hand hold the 180-600 much longer than the 800PF and thus move in for tighter shots,
7. In good light, I found the images from the 180-600 indistinguishable from the 800PF, while in low contrast light the 800PF edged out the 180-600.
Disclosure... I recently sold my 800PF/400 f4.5 and replaced them with the 400 f2.8S. I kept the 180-600 and will add a second 1.4x to my 400S when I need the reach an 800PF offers. This is no dig on the lenses that I sold, but was an opportunistic move that I always wanted to make.
