Jesse Evans wrote:
While it certainly is not worth the $7k premium imo, the 800/5.6 shares the front formula with the 400/2.8 but it does not share the optical formula of the 2x TC. The “tc” in this case contains a UD element and sits in front of the drop in filter slot. As a result, there is not the typical degradation of quality that comes from a TC.
If only Canon would sell such a high quality standalone TC.
Yes, I understand that, though is a UD element worth $7k? To some people where $ is no object I suppose so, though it is difficult for me to rationalize it.
I've had the EF version of this lens for several years now. From what I've been able to ascertain via various sources the RF version won't improve my image quality any measurable amount. A couple sources even claimed the EF version is a tick sharper. Whether that's accurate of not I can't say.
I think the biggest benefit of the RF version is weight. The EF is a heavy MoFo.
armd wrote:
Yes, I understand that, though is a UD element worth $7k? To some people where $ is no object I suppose so, though it is difficult for me to rationalize it.
I agree, as it was my first sentence. I don’t believe a UD element is the reason it is $7k more. Rather, it is that the lens will be produced in extremely low quantities and at that price it is worth selling. It will be worth buying to an extremely small audience.
Dilemma wrote:
I've had the EF version of this lens for several years now. From what I've been able to ascertain via various sources the RF version won't improve my image quality any measurable amount. A couple sources even claimed the EF version is a tick sharper. Whether that's accurate of not I can't say.
I think the biggest benefit of the RF version is weight. The EF is a heavy MoFo.
I owned the EF version for 9 years, the weight savings and much better MFD and over all shorter length is well worth it. Overall is shorter more so if you need the adapter for mirrorless.
armd wrote:
What I am trying to understand is what is the disadvantage of owning a 400 f/2.8 and slapping on a 2x TC to achieve the equivalent of the 800 f/5.6? Is there a significant optical penalty? They are the same optical formula, it's just that Canon affixed a 2x TC to make a 800 mm. I guess one can add an additional TC on the 800 for extra FL, though as others have observed, atmospherics can be challenging. Given that a 800 is a $19k lens vs. a 400 f/2.8 at $12k + tc and one has the added benefit of being able to use it for sports......Show more →
I am a big fan of the RF 400mm, if you are not at 800mm all the time then the 400mm and 2x is sweet. However this could be said for all lenses. Why have a 600mm, just use the 400mm + 1.4x etc. Like said above if one uses the 800mm all the time the 800mm would be a better fit with the possibility of going 1120mm or 1600mm. I do not think there is no wrong or right lenses, people will buy and use what they want. If the 800mm does not fit your needs then there are options.
Personally if I sell one it would be the 800mm not the 400mm because of that f2.8, it is a beauty. I personally have always liked the 800mm range and have shot with one the most over the years. To me this is by far the best 800mm.
I find the atmospheric issues are better controlled with out the use of TC's. I feel primes win in this department.
I see the MFD argument made but I don't really understand it. The minimum focus distance on the EF is about 20 feet. The RF version is about 8-1/2 feet.
My question is this; what are you shooting with an 800 that would dictate needing a MFD this close? If I'm shooting the 800 chances are good I need that reach. If I didn't, I'd use a different lens.
I'm not trying to be argumentative Rob I'm just trying to understand. I can't recall a single time I've wished for a better MFD while shooting the 800.
How do I get to 1120mm or 1600mm with a RF 400mm 2.8
I’ve been photographing small birds in Arizona from November to mid May, the. Grizzlies in teton/Yellowstone, mid May - mid August, then back to Arizona. What lens is a versatile as this with the FOV and MFD None.
Who is paying $19k? I now have access to these lenses new at an incredible price and more than happy to help anyone here get it.
armd wrote:
What I am trying to understand is what is the disadvantage of owning a 400 f/2.8 and slapping on a 2x TC to achieve the equivalent of the 800 f/5.6? Is there a significant optical penalty? They are the same optical formula, it's just that Canon affixed a 2x TC to make a 800 mm. I guess one can add an additional TC on the 800 for extra FL, though as others have observed, atmospherics can be challenging. Given that a 800 is a $19k lens vs. a 400 f/2.8 at $12k + tc and one has the added benefit of being able to use it for sports......Show more →
Dilemma wrote:
I can't recall a single time I've wished for a better MFD while shooting the 800.
There are plenty of times I have wished for a better MFD with the 800 f11, and I am sure there are many owners of the 800 f5.6 that feel the same. If you are shooting a wide variety of wildlife and just happen to have a 600mm or 800mm lens mounted on your camera, why would it not be advantageous to have a short MFD. Especially since you often only have a few seconds to capture fleeting wildlife?
For me I like using the closer MFD it as a close up lens when I can. I tend not to bring every lens I own so I make do with what I bring that day.
This shot came to mind while out looking for deer I came across this scene. This happened to be the 400mm + 2x but similar MFD. If I had my old EF 800mm I would have been over twice the distance away. I did not own the 800mm at the time but would have had it if so.
As I said above, if you never need closer MFD or 800mm etc there are plenty of options out there. Why would you buy this 800mm if none of the features appeal to you? Personally I am done proving why someone owns this lens. This is a picture thread started by the OP, so maybe start a different post if you want to bash it and need to understand why anyone would own it.
RobAmy wrote:
Why would you buy this 800mm if none of the features appeal to you? Personally I am done proving why someone owns this lens. This is a picture thread started by the OP, so maybe start a different post if you want to bash it and need to understand why anyone would own it.
Settle down. I didn't 'bash' your purchase in any way. Don't forget I own the EF version of that lens. I asked a simple question.
Dilemma wrote:
Settle down. I didn't 'bash' your purchase in any way. Don't forget I own the EF version of that lens. I asked a simple question.
Maybe it sounded like I am upset, I honestly am not. I never said you bashed my purchase. I was just making the point maybe this is the wrong thread with a few of the comments I am reading here vs picture posting like the OP started. So if you think I attacked you I am sorry. I thought I gave you an example of why I like the better MFD because you asked. Honestly I enjoy the RF 800mm if someone else does or does not that is their choice.
Dilemma wrote:
I see the MFD argument made but I don't really understand it. The minimum focus distance on the EF is about 20 feet. The RF version is about 8-1/2 feet.
My question is this; what are you shooting with an 800 that would dictate needing a MFD this close? If I'm shooting the 800 chances are good I need that reach. If I didn't, I'd use a different lens.
I'm not trying to be argumentative Rob I'm just trying to understand. I can't recall a single time I've wished for a better MFD while shooting the 800.
Just spent a week in Glacier National Park. Didn't get much in terms of wildlife or birds. For myself the MFD of 8-1/2 feet came in handy when shooting wildflowers.
What R camera body are you guys finding works best with the Canon RF 800mm f/5.6? R3 or R5 or...?
I'm still using my EF big whites. I purchased the original R and a couple of R L lenses in 2018 and decided original R wasn't going to do it for me. And they've been in storage ever since. So I've been using the 1DX III and 5DIV and the 300, 400, 500 and 600 EFs.
Just tuned back in to FM to catch up and things are looking up with the R system. I just bought three new R L lenses yesterday and I am on the fence about the R3 or R5 and R 800. Any suggestions on the body for wildlife / birds with the 800? Thanks in advance!
netexpress wrote:
Excellent photos! Thanks for sharing!
What R camera body are you guys finding works best with the Canon RF 800mm f/5.6? R3 or R5 or...?
I'm still using my EF big whites. I purchased the original R and a couple of R L lenses in 2018 and decided original R wasn't going to do it for me. And they've been in storage ever since. So I've been using the 1DX III and 5DIV and the 300, 400, 500 and 600 EFs.
Just tuned back in to FM to catch up and things are looking up with the R system. I just bought three new R L lenses yesterday and I am on the fence about the R3 or R5 and R 800. Any suggestions on the body for wildlife / birds with the 800? Thanks in advance!
Thanks. I only used the R3 with the 800mm, I have used the RF 400mm and the RF 600 with the R5 also. The R5 is nice but I personally like the R3 better. I find it does everything a bit better than the R5 except for resolution which for me has never been an issue. I sold my R5's for the R3's and never looked back. The AF system is the best I have used. I like that it felt closer to the 1dx line also which I have mainly used. I really like the weight of the R3 also.
I've had my Rf400 f2.8 for about 6 months now and so far I'm blown away with the performance of the x2 making it a 800 f5.6. In fact, the x2 is almost always on my 400 90% of the times. I do regret not going for the 800 but the 400 and extenders was all I could afford at the time. Personally I love the short MFD because the birds I shoot are always small so even if it lands close to me, I can still get these really cool close up portraits of them.
I signed up for an account to post pictures but I just realised I cant post pictures unless I pay a fee so oh well.....
RobAmy wrote:
Thanks. I only used the R3 with the 800mm, I have used the RF 400mm and the RF 600 with the R5 also. The R5 is nice but I personally like the R3 better. I find it does everything a bit better than the R5 except for resolution which for me has never been an issue. I sold my R5's for the R3's and never looked back. The AF system is the best I have used. I like that it felt closer to the 1dx line also which I have mainly used. I really like the weight of the R3 also. ...Show more →
That's very helpful! I'm also used to the 1 series and looking at the photos of the R3 - it looks more like "home" to me. I was hoping to hold out for the R 1 series but it doesn't look like they'll have that out until 2024.
