Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 4

6 7 end

RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

G Lavaty
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Imagemaster wrote:
Yeah, not worth the price:

https://www.sulasula.com/en/olympus-150-400mm-4-5-tc-in-costa-rica/

I have zero doubt that the OM systems lens is excellent. However, I will add that those are pretty much all setup type photos that would look pretty great with just about any telephoto lens. It would have been more interesting to me to see a review with photos away from the setups where things are a little more challenging.

Jun 19, 2023 at 07:45 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

G Lavaty wrote:
It would have been more interesting to me to see a review with photos away from the setups where things are a little more challenging.

So go read some reviews. Do you know how to Google

"olympus 150-400 review"

Jun 19, 2023 at 08:59 PM

lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Jeesh... and here I thought this thread was about the CANON RF 200-500 F4. I must have accidently clicked into the Micro Four Thirds Forum.

Jun 19, 2023 at 09:13 PM

Jesse Evans
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Imagemaster wrote:
You mean like saying it is marketing BS when they say the Canon EF100-400 is a 160-640mm f5.6 when on an R7

Fake math by Canon, Nikon, and Sony, I guess.

Yes, that is fake math as well. They want it to appear to be better than it is by only applying the “equivalence” to the focal length and not the f number.

Since you seem to be implying that somehow equivalence doesn’t apply to aperture, perhaps you can explain where all the extra light the 100-400 projects in its image circle goes? It certainly isn’t in to the APS-C image. It’s lost. Over half the light the lens gathers is lost, outside the APS-C sensor.

Jun 19, 2023 at 09:15 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

lighthound wrote:
Jeesh... and here I thought this thread was about the CANON RF 200-500 F4. I must have accidently clicked into the Micro Four Thirds Forum.

Geez, you are a pretty lame moderator. Did you miss the Sony and Nikon posts?

Jun 19, 2023 at 11:16 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

dmahar wrote:
I suspect it will be $10k US - meaning $17k here in Australia.. similar to the RF100-300 pricing

I think your dreaming. $20K+ for sure. Canon Australia RF pricing is criminal. Covert US price to AU, add 10% GST then another 30% Australia Tax.

Jun 20, 2023 at 12:32 AM

dmahar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Pixel Perfect wrote:
I think your dreaming. $20K+ for sure. Canon Australia RF pricing is criminal. Covert US price to AU, add 10% GST then another 30% Australia Tax.

Pixel, sadly I suspect you are right.... although it may settle down a bit as time goes by

Jun 20, 2023 at 06:15 AM

lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Imagemaster wrote:
Geez, you are a pretty lame moderator. Did you miss the Sony and Nikon posts?

Just be thankful I'm not a moderator or else your sorry grumpy ass would be getting another "Time out" away from the forum like you had a few years ago.

Jun 20, 2023 at 07:26 AM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Imagemaster wrote:
You mean like saying it is marketing BS when they say the Canon EF100-400 is a 160-640mm f5.6 when on an R7

Fake math by Canon, Nikon, and Sony, I guess.

Does Canon actually market the lens in that manner?
I had a read of Canon Canada's marketing and specification pages for the RF 100-500 and the R7 and can see no mention of it turning into a 160-800mm lens whether at f/7.1 or f/11 (as it actually would be if we called it an 800mm lens after the 1.6x crop factor).

Jun 20, 2023 at 07:49 AM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Imagemaster wrote:
Yeah, not worth the price:

https://www.sulasula.com/en/olympus-150-400mm-4-5-tc-in-costa-rica/

I'm pretty sure he could have got all those fancy bird on a fancy stick shots with the much less expensive Z400/4.5 or 200-600G lenses on appropriate bodies. I guess the cost of the lens is somewhat made up for by the price difference between an OM-1 and a stacked sensor FF from CanNikSony.....I'll give you that.

Jun 20, 2023 at 07:52 AM

randomguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

arbitrage wrote:
Does Canon actually market the lens in that manner?
I had a read of Canon Canada's marketing and specification pages for the RF 100-500 and the R7 and can see no mention of it turning into a 160-800mm lens whether at f/7.1 or f/11 (as it actually would be if we called it an 800mm lens after the 1.6x crop factor).

I doubt that since that would be an argument to not buy their more expensive cameras. Would be cool if it worked like the OM fanboys claim though, but then why stop at 4/3rds sensor size? Could make a tiny sensor with 10x crop and turn the 50mm f1.2 into a 500mm f1.2. Awesome!

Jun 20, 2023 at 02:30 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

dmahar wrote:
Pixel, sadly I suspect you are right.... although it may settle down a bit as time goes by

I fell off, my chair the other day as I saw the 1200 f/8 which BTW is basically an EF 600 f/4 III + 2x TC + EF-RF adapter glued on, is selling for $32K. WTaF! 800 is $27K too.

I don't see any price easing after a long time with RF glass. The 100-500L is still a ludicrous $4900 after all this time, when you can get a Sony 200-600 for $2.2K. Canon RF is consistently the dearest glass of the big three in Australia by a long way. This is a huge part of why I gave up altogether on Canon. I wouldn't mind an R5, RF glass is 30-40% dearer than the EF equivalents.

Jun 20, 2023 at 07:30 PM

Jesse Evans
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Pixel Perfect wrote:
I fell off, my chair the other day as I saw the 1200 f/8 which BTW is basically an EF 600 f/4 III + 2x TC + EF-RF adapter glued on, is selling for $32K. WTaF! 800 is $27K too.

I don't see any price easing after a long time with RF glass. The 100-500L is still a ludicrous $4900 after all this time, when you can get a Sony 200-600 for $2.2K. Canon RF is consistently the dearest glass of the big three in Australia by a long way. This is a huge part of why I gave up...Show more →

Is that price difference because of Australian tariffs on Japanese lenses vs made in China and Thailand? Just curious. I agree it’s a problem for Canon.

Jun 20, 2023 at 08:19 PM

dmahar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Australian pricing includes 10% tax by default and includes 5 years factory warranty. If you do the math it is not as bad compared to USD as it at first seems.

Jun 21, 2023 at 06:05 AM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Jesse Evans wrote:
Since you seem to be implying that somehow equivalence doesn’t apply to aperture, perhaps you can explain where all the extra light the 100-400 projects in its image circle goes? It certainly isn’t in to the APS-C image. It’s lost. Over half the light the lens gathers is lost, outside the APS-C sensor.

https://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/02/08/aperture-equivalent-sensor-size/

Should we condemn Olympus or Panasonic because they don’t state the equivalent aperture or Total Light gathering? Or should we focus more on the advantages a smaller system can give you? A Sony RX10 II advertised with a 24-200mm f/2.8 will appear misleading to some but it also describes a compact camera with a fast lens that gives you the same zoom range (and the same exposure) as more expensive and larger cameras. Of course, with the sensor being smaller, you’ll have more noise and less dynamic range.

Below you can see three images taken with three lenses I own that are...Show more →

Jun 22, 2023 at 03:47 PM

Jesse Evans
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Imagemaster wrote:
https://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/02/08/aperture-equivalent-sensor-size/

That is because ISO is a standard that is adopted by digital cameras to mimic the ratios of film speed and aperture required to match those required by film with the same ISO rating.

Pixels that are smaller require additional amplification to reach the same ISO rating.

A full frame 20mp like the Canon R6 has 6.54 micrometer wide photosites. This means it has roughly 6.54*6.54=42.77 square micrometers in area per photosite.
A micro 4/3 camera like the Olympus OM-1 has 3.36 micrometer wide photosites. This means it has roughly 3.36*3.36=11.29 square micrometers in area per photosite.

That means for the exact same intensity of light that is hitting the 20mp sensor, the micro 4/3 sensor only has around 1/4 the area per pixel to collect light and generate a signal. This reduction in area of about 1/4 results in the about 2 stop reduction in light collection.

In order to maintain the same ratio between ISO <> Shutter Speed <> Aperture, 4 times the gain is applied to the micro 4/3 photosite to match the same signal generated by the same light hitting the much larger area of the full frame sensor photosite. All cameras have their sensors gain tuned to roughly match their target ISO ratings, that is why you don't see things over and underexposed. Instead, you see differences manifested in noise, dynamic range, and depth of field.

If the pixels are collecting 1/4 of the amount of light as the full frame sensor due to being 1/4 of the size, then you must also then accept that all pixels working together are also collecting 1/4 of the amount of light across the entire sensor.

You may notice also that in spite of being the widest of the options, your A7r II has significantly less depth of field than either of the other two options. That is because the aperture width (in millimeters, not in f-stops) dictates the amount of light being collected at any given angle of view, and the aperture width also dictates the amount of background blur (which is also a result of allowing more light to be able to enter the wider aperture opening).

The Panasonic option has a 25/1.4=17.9mm aperture
The Fuji option has a 35/1.4=24mm aperture
The Sony option has a 55/1.8=30.55mm aperture

Jun 22, 2023 at 04:30 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #17 · p.5 #17 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Yada, yada, yada. I could care less about the DOF differences.

What HE showed with his 3 examples is that the exposures were pretty well the same, despite the same aperture on all three.

i.e. f4 on a M4/3 is not the equivalent of f8 on a FF.

Jun 22, 2023 at 10:09 PM

Jesse Evans
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #18 · p.5 #18 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

Imagemaster wrote:
Yada, yada, yada. I could care less about the DOF differences.

What HE showed with his 3 examples is that the exposures were pretty well the same, despite the same aperture on all three.

i.e. f4 on a M4/3 is not the equivalent of f8 on a FF.

Did you even read the response? That’s because there is more gain applied to less light on the smaller sensor and lesser gain applied to more light on the bigger sensor.

ISO is not some immutable property. The images do not prove anything other than camera and phone manufacturers more or less correctly calibrate their sensors to give the same exposure for a given ISO setting on the camera. Equivalent ISO between sensor sizes, and between different pixel sizes for the same sensor size (a7rV has much smaller pixels than the a7IV) is achieved through tuning the amplification of the signal collected by the photosites. Depth of field was like the last point I made and only tangentially related.

Bury your head in the sand if you want.

Jun 22, 2023 at 11:14 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #19 · p.5 #19 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

The latest CR2 indicates $16K. https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-usm-update-cr2

EBH

Aug 04, 2023 at 05:47 PM

lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #20 · p.5 #20 · RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR

EB-1 wrote:
The latest CR2 indicates $16K. https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-usm-update-cr2

EBH

As expected. It's going to be a fantastic lens but too rich for my hobbyist blood.
All the more reason I'm praying they release a mid priced RF 500 f4.5 prime. But in todays ridiculous world, even that will likely be hitting 10K.

Aug 04, 2023 at 06:16 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.