Sadly, Canon has virtually ignored the middle priced market and has instead focused on high end lenses which many of us can't afford or they have offered low end, impractical lenses like the 800 f/11
Comparatively, the Canon 800 f/5.6 lens is over a kilo heavier, $10k more expensive, and is 2" longer than the Nikon f/6.3. I've held both lenses and while the Nikon can be handheld easily the Canon cannot except for brief periods. The Nikon lens is about a pound lighter than the RF 400 f/2.8 and a bit skinnier. It's an amazing lens.
Why hasn't Sony done the same? Shame on Sony! And to think, Sony has been in the FF mirrorless game for nearly a decade and the best they can do is a 400/2.8 and 600/4. And it took them how long to finally release even those?
Maybe you could argue their 200-600 is close enough?
I'm guessing there may eventually be a response from Canon, but perhaps it's not their immediate priority? Perhaps they're going after a bigger target first, such as the higher volume entry level MILC market in both APS-C and FF. I suspect Canon very much wants to wrest away Sony's #1 status in mirrorless sales. And it won't happen with niche expensive super-tele lenses ($~6000 is still very expensive to the average photographer).
"Patience, young grasshopper."
Credit though to Nikon for finding niche opportunities and exploiting them. Canon on the other hand seems to have a somewhat different corporate philosophy and accompanying product priorities. But that's not to say Canon hasn't been innovating in mirrorless!
Just the way Canon does business. When I was getting into bird photography, the rule was that up to 400mm and f/5.6 was affordable (400 f/5.6, 100-400 II), and after that was a chasm of incredible monetary depth and despair before you reached 400 f/4 and 500mm, and beyond. They’ve since thrown us a bone with the 100-500 and the 600/800 f/11 lenses, but they’re compromised in some fashion in order for Canon to protect their Holy Grail $uper-telephotos. This is why I won’t go back to Canon for my birding, which is kind of annoying because I have an R5, and the AF is so damn amazing. I’d kill for a 800PF-style lens to use on it, it’d be a thing of beauty.
Canon lost a huge chunk of the bird/wildlife market to Nikon after the D500, D850, 200-500, 300PF, 500PF releases. It’s not that Canon couldn’t respond at the time, it’s that they chose not to, and that’s fine, Canon still had/has amazing systems that could equal or best Nikon’s, but most people couldn’t afford it or chose not to pay such a ludicrous amount. Again, that’s Canon’s way. Nothing personal, it’s just business, if it doesn’t suit your needs, financially or otherwise, vote with your wallet and consider a new system to shoot.
I’d be willing to bet though, that at some point Canon delivers something into that segment that just kicks ass. A 500 and 600 DO f/5.6 would be fantastic. A quirky thought I had: what about a 700mm f/6.3 DO? I’d snatch that up in a heartbeat. There’s a ton of ways that Canon could catch us off guard and surprise everyone, you just never know. It’s still early in the RF game, just chill out and give them time.
armd wrote:
Sadly, Canon has virtually ignored the middle priced market and has instead focused on high end lenses which many of us can't afford or they have offered low end, impractical lenses like the 800 f/11
Comparatively, the Canon 800 f/5.6 lens is over a kilo heavier, $10k more expensive, and is 2" longer than the Nikon f/6.3. I've held both lenses and while the Nikon can be handheld easily the Canon cannot except for brief periods. The Nikon lens is about a pound lighter than the RF 400 f/2.8 and a bit skinnier. It's an amazing lens.
Shame on Canon!
The 800 f/11 is far from impractical. It is indeed the most portable 800mm lens out there, and you don't have to look far on the forums to see how great the IQ is. Its 1/6th the price of the Nikon, and 1/16th (ish) the price of the 5.6.
jedibrain wrote:
The 800 f/11 is far from impractical. It is indeed the most portable 800mm lens out there, and you don't have to look far on the forums to see how great the IQ is. Its 1/6th the price of the Nikon, and 1/16th (ish) the price of the 5.6.
-Brian
f/11 is impractical for moving subjects (BIF/moving WL) in any other situation than great light. Try using this lens in early mornings/evenings or in overcast conditions for the aforementioned scenarios. Throw in the limited central AF and it adds to the impracticality. With all due respect, these factors far outweigh its lightweight and small size of the 800 f/11.
jedibrain wrote:
The 800 f/11 is far from impractical.
I imagine it’s fine for people shooting hummingbirds from their covered verandahs, but it is totally impractical for the kind of birding I do because of the lack of weather sealing.
A few weeks ago I got drenched in a sudden rainstorm. Showers were forecast, but they very often miss where I am. So I checked the rain radar before I left, and there was nothing that looked like it would pass over me. I drove 5 minutes to my birding site, and had been there maybe half an hour before there was a torrential downpour. I got drenched getting back to the car – and the camera had to stay out of the bag because the lens and body only fitted separately and I didn’t want to split them when water was running off the outside of them. (For those in Melbourne, this was the day the airport terminal was flooded.) I dried the rig off in the car, and once home left it assembled for a day. Had this been a non–weather-sealed lens, that would have been ruined and probably also the body due to ingress at the mount. As it is, everything is fine with this gear.
In nearly 40 years this is the second wettest I’ve ever got gear (the wettest was the Routeburn Track during floods) – and it was 5 minutes from my house! You can avoid it with care but sooner or later you will get wet doing outdoors type photography. And I do think that, just as those with little money need a reliable car because they can’t pay for sudden repairs, cheap lenses need weather sealing.
Geez folks, figure it out. What is practical for some is not for others, and vice-versa. I have shot with lots of non-weather-sealed gear for over 50 years with zero problems. And it rains a little bit more in British Columbia than it does in the state of Melbourne. And guess what? A cheap plastic bag placed over my camera/lens stops rain getting on it when I get caught in a sudden downpour. Really complicated.
And I don't shot in the rain because it negatively affects AF in addition to blurring the subject. Again, not rocket science.
The RF 600 f11 and 800 f11 lenses can be very practical for lots of people. If it is not, then don't use one. Duh!
Not as good results as with a 600 f4? I could care less, because it is not practical for me to carry and use a lens that heavy.
Canon EOS R6m2RF800mm F11 IS STM lens800mmf/11.01/2000s4000 ISO+0.5 EV
Canon EOS R6m2RF800mm F11 IS STM + EXTENDER RF1.4x lens1120mmf/16.01/125s400 ISO+0.5 EV
jedibrain wrote:
The 800 f/11 is far from impractical.
melcat wrote:
I imagine it’s fine for people shooting hummingbirds from their covered verandahs, but it is totally impractical for the kind of birding I do because of the lack of weather sealing.
The 800/11 has a 6 m/20 ft. MFD, so that would require some extension tubes to be useful for most hummers on FF. I typically use a 36 mm tube with the 500/4 II and 1.4x III, which naturally focuses to about 4m.
Imagemaster wrote:
Geez folks, figure it out. What is practical for some is not for others, and vice-versa. I have shot with lots of non-weather-sealed gear for over 50 years with zero problems. And it rains a little bit more in British Columbia than it does in the state of Melbourne. And guess what? A cheap plastic bag placed over my camera/lens stops rain getting on it when I get caught in a sudden downpour. Really complicated.
And I don't shot in the rain because it negatively affects AF in addition to blurring the subject. Again, not rocket science.
The RF 600 f11 and 800 f11 lenses can be very practical for lots of people. If it is not, then don't use one. Duh!
Not as good results as with a 600 f4? I could care less, because it is not practical for me to carry and use a lens that heavy....Show more →
Blue skies and bright light. Come my way where average EV is 8-11 on a bright day meaning that for a Tv of 1/2000 you're shooting at ISO's of >12,800 at f/11 during the day with morning and evening light out of the question. You're absolutely right about the relative practicality of the lenses and in my neck of the woods, the 800 f/11 is not. Even my 100-500 at f/7.1 is too slow for those applications. On a recent trip to back swamp and FL beaches, where the light was pure, the 100-500 was used 90+% of the time, the "Big White" was largely idle, and the 800 f/11 would have been superb. The 600 f/4 is impractical to carry and handhold for periods of time and that's why I wish Canon produced a high quality, long focal length, faster (f/4-5.6), lighter, medium priced, modern lenses.
As an ex Canon user with the 7DII and 400DOII, I am also bewildered at Canon's marked lack of initiative regarding longer focal length lenses for their RF system. Or perhaps I don't have a clear picture on their ported from EF mount 400/600/800 lenses?
They are a big company with the means and history to be at the forefront, but even a lens like the lóng rumored 500mm f4(.5) DO lens just seems to have gone up in smoke.
Meanwhile Nikon says thank you and takes the wildlife/birding segment.
I can only assume that Canon has lost all interest in this segment of the market. What else to come up with?
armd wrote:
f/11 is impractical for moving subjects (BIF/moving WL) in any other situation than great light. Try using this lens in early mornings/evenings or in overcast conditions for the aforementioned scenarios. Throw in the limited central AF and it adds to the impracticality. With all due respect, these factors far outweigh its lightweight and small size of the 800 f/11.
I'm not much of an early bird (see what I did there? ), but I have used it in a variety of situations you mention and found good results. Overcast soccer match comes to mind, and a bit in Alaska which as always overcast and misty when I was there (though not a ton, as most things are too close for that lens. I guess we'll just have to settle on that I own the lens, have used it and gotten good results in less than ideal conditions (so have others here), and based on that experience do not agree with your broad dismissal of this lens. Don't fret though, there is room in this world and on these forums for us to disagree and still get along.
ChrisMak wrote:
As an ex Canon user with the 7DII and 400DOII, I am also bewildered at Canon's marked lack of initiative regarding longer focal length lenses for their RF system. Or perhaps I don't have a clear picture on their ported from EF mount 400/600/800 lenses?
They are a big company with the means and history to be at the forefront, but even a lens like the lóng rumored 500mm f4(.5) DO lens just seems to have gone up in smoke.
Meanwhile Nikon says thank you and takes the wildlife/birding segment.
I can only assume that Canon has lost all interest in this segment of the market. What else to come up with? ...Show more →
There is very little monkey in wildlife photography compared to event and other photography that has limited access. The Nikon is low volume since everybody doesn't want to spend $21K for one body and lens. Canon probably makes far more profit on the 100-500 with volume than they ever will on a 500/4 or f/4.5 big tele. New cameras and lenses will come in time. Meanwhile the adapted lenses work well.
EB-1 wrote:
There is very little monkey in wildlife photography compared to event and other photography that has limited access. The Nikon is low volume since everybody doesn't want to spend $21K for one body and lens. Canon probably makes far more profit on the 100-500 with volume than they ever will on a 500/4 or f/4.5 big tele. New cameras and lenses will come in time. Meanwhile the adapted lenses work well.
EBH
I can understand the business perspective, and am aware of the scale difference regarding wildlife versus event photography.
And from that perspective it is good to be aware of the priorities of the camera manufacturers, and it was the main reason I switched away from Canon myself.
It makes it all the more special that Nikon takes to bringing special, innovative design super telelenses with such stride.
The Z400mm f4.5 and Z800mm f6.3 lenses are nothing less than miracle lenses if you realize how much R&D Nikon put into these for such a small market segment.
I am not thrilled with Nikon and especially Sony either.
Nikon only has one camera that AFs well (the Z9 is great, though not perfect), and the 400/4.5 PF is too short for me. The 600/4 w/TC is great for some purposes but too long for others and too large many times. I have less use for the 800/6.3 Z without anything between it and the 100-400. I had some hopes for a 200-600 Nikkor, but to date it is vorpware and rumours indicate it will be a low quality lens like the 200-500.
If I were ten years younger and had real money, I'd have the Canon 100-500 remounted in Nikon Z and the Nikkor 600/4 w/TC remounted in RF. For now, the "old" Canon 500/4 IS II really works well even at 45MP and with the 1.4x III.
You see that complaint a lot: “Nikon only has one body with good AF”. Everyone forgets to add: “at the moment”, “for now”. I’d be willing to bet Nikon makes up that deficiency faster than Canon offers a lineup of attainable mid-priced lenses like Nikon has.
So you need a 500mm lens, not a 400 or 600 will do. In any case, looks like you’re stuck because none of the brands have a recent 500 f/4 offering, aside from their zooms. Honestly, I don’t think we’ll see another 500 f/4 from any of them again unfortunately, but if we were to, I’d think Canon would be the one to do it.
