Oups! I first tought that I could not be satisfied by the results such a zoom could get me if I used it instead of my now classic EF 100-400L II and 500 F4 II combo. Now this video has almost convinced be I would be happier this this zoom in good light conditions.
So it is bad news for me. It can’t replace the combo I am now using, so I can’t sell it to offset the financial hit. But the good IQ and focus tracking shown in this video is bad news for my long term retirement fund.
This lens will be awesome when shooting from a kayak. The only situation I could miss the 500 f4 is when the subject is close to the busy shore background. Which is quite often. Decision, decisions…
This lens is growing on me. I like the 100-500mm that's in the bag and while it works well with the 1.4x converter, there are enough times where it hunts for focus to make me wish for an alternative I can afford.
Not terribly concerned about the f9. Most of the use will be on brightly lit days and even if I find myself out with overcast skies, cameras these days handle higher ISO settings tremendously better than the cameras of old.
I'm not sure if I like the non-removeable tripod collar, but I can always spin it up top like I did with my old 300mm f2.8 when I opt to hand hold the lens. Overall I like the reviews of the pre-production models and may find one of these lenses under the Christmas tree.
drobertfranz wrote:
There is precedence for an internal push pull zoom The really old Canon 150-600mm F5.6L had a version of it. You had a focus dial that you pushed forward and backward to zoom. It worked really well and kept the lens better sealed. Only problem was you really couldn't zoom while handholding. If the RF200-800 would have been a push pull I would get one.. As it is, probably not. After the 100-500 I swore I'd never buy another external twist zoom
the 150-600 f5.6L was modified by Century Optics for zooming in the movie industry. Worked very well and canon continued to make 50 lenses each year for them to modify for several years after the lens was officially discontinued.
I just added an arca base to the 150-600 f5.6L lens. worked great. Used it on tripod. It was a fantastic lens designed over 40 years ago. Imagine what they could do now with modern designs and materials. Many had Century Optics modifications which included a change to a "C" mount. Saw them used in places like lamar valley in Yellowstone for wildlife filming. One had David attenborough's name on it although I have no idea if he ever owned it. It was lenses like this that convinced people professional work could be done with a zoom lens.
I'd rather have a lens like this and add a 1.4x if I needed 800.
Flowernut wrote:
I just added an arca base to the 150-600 f5.6L lens. worked great. Used it on tripod. It was a fantastic lens designed over 40 years ago. Imagine what they could do now with modern designs and materials. Many had Century Optics modifications which included a change to a "C" mount. Saw them used in places like lamar valley in Yellowstone for wildlife filming. One had David attenborough's name on it although I have no idea if he ever owned it. It was lenses like this that convinced people professional work could be done with a zoom lens.
I'd rather have a lens like this and add a 1.4x if I needed 800. ...Show more →
Yes I knew several big name cinematographers who adored that lens... I've always hoped Canon would update using modern materials and design.. Now that would get my attentions!
coppertop wrote:
This lens is growing on me. I like the 100-500mm that's in the bag and while it works well with the 1.4x converter, there are enough times where it hunts for focus to make me wish for an alternative I can afford.
Not terribly concerned about the f9. Most of the use will be on brightly lit days and even if I find myself out with overcast skies, cameras these days handle higher ISO settings tremendously better than the cameras of old.
I'm not sure if I like the non-removeable tripod collar, but I can always spin it up top like I did with my old 300mm f2.8 when I opt to hand hold the lens. Overall I like the reviews of the pre-production models and may find one of these lenses under the Christmas tree....Show more →
I just called my mom and pop shop just to chat. KEH will be in their store a the end of the month. Just got an email about the Canon Canada used gear certification program but I'm not sure about that yet. We'll see where this goes. I'm not in any panic and I could go to Portugal next Feb with my current gear.
Just like with the RF 100-400, we can expect a little loss in micro contrast at the longest focal length wide open, that would shape up nicely by stopping down 1/3
gilles.t wrote:
The only situation I could miss the 500 f4 is when the subject is close to the busy shore background. Which is quite often. Decision, decisions…
Then you'd be happy to know that if you can get the subject in the frame, 800 F9 is more shallow than 500 F4.
I put the numbers in for full frame, 800 f9 @ 50'. Depth of Field (DoF) is around 7" on that combination. It's 8.21" on 500 F4 @ 50'. The focal length has a bigger difference on depth of field than aperture does, so you can easily make up for it provided you can still frame the subject at a narrow FoV. (The Field of View is only 2' 3" at 800, where it's 3' 7" at 500)
If you framed in at 635mm F8 you'd get 10" DoF on a 2' 10" wide frame with the subject 50' away. That is probably big enough for a lot of smaller critters, but things like swans you might need to back up or zoom out to frame.
Imagemaster wrote:
The 100-500 images crop just fine, and both IQ and eye AF are very good when you slap the 2x TC on it.
My only issue with the 100-500mm and teleconverters is that at times the AF gets a little wonky. Not enough to give up on photography but noticeable. And that may be the biggest draw with the 200-800mm. It gives me the reach without a teleconverter and is affordable.
Curious, has anyone seen a video showing the AF speed of the new lens?
Flowernut wrote:
I just added an arca base to the 150-600 f5.6L lens. worked great. Used it on tripod. It was a fantastic lens designed over 40 years ago. Imagine what they could do now with modern designs and materials. Many had Century Optics modifications which included a change to a "C" mount. Saw them used in places like lamar valley in Yellowstone for wildlife filming. One had David attenborough's name on it although I have no idea if he ever owned it. It was lenses like this that convinced people professional work could be done with a zoom lens.
I'd rather have a lens like this and add a 1.4x if I needed 800. ...Show more → drobertfranz wrote:
Yes I knew several big name cinematographers who adored that lens... I've always hoped Canon would update using modern materials and design.. Now that would get my attentions!
It was also used by NFL films on 16mm cameras back in the days. Wonder what the effective focal length conversion is for that imaging format... Unless these lenses have been totally rebuilt and rehoused, I don't think I've seen one used on the sidelines for quite some time.
rscheffler wrote:
It was also used by NFL films on 16mm cameras back in the days. Wonder what the effective focal length conversion is for that imaging format... Unless these lenses have been totally rebuilt and rehoused, I don't think I've seen one used on the sidelines for quite some time.
A fantastic lens though mine tends to spend more time attached to my Leica M10M vs the R5. Still hope one day they will do an RF 150-600L 5.6
rscheffler wrote:
It was also used by NFL films on 16mm cameras back in the days. Wonder what the effective focal length conversion is for that imaging format... Unless these lenses have been totally rebuilt and rehoused, I don't think I've seen one used on the sidelines for quite some time.
burningheart wrote:
A fantastic lens though mine tends to spend more time attached to my Leica M10M vs the R5. Still hope one day they will do an RF 150-600L 5.6
How do you think it compares to modern lenses in that focal length range, considering you have many, IIRC?
But I still think a lens like this is too middle of the road to stand out. At f/5.6, it will not be as compact as the slower zooms and therefore not as hand holdable. And it will be on the slow side for applications where low light will be a significant factor, such as indoor and night sports events, dawn/dusk wildlife, etc. IMO Canon will probably be better to market a couple semi-slow DO primes in this range where zoom doesn't complicate and enlarge the design and as alternatives to fast and slow zoom options (assuming the 200-500/4 materializes).
rscheffler wrote:
How do you think it compares to modern lenses in that focal length range, considering you have many, IIRC?
But I still think a lens like this is too middle of the road to stand out. At f/5.6, it will not be as compact as the slower zooms and therefore not as hand holdable. And it will be on the slow side for applications where low light will be a significant factor, such as indoor and night sports events, dawn/dusk wildlife, etc. IMO Canon will probably be better to market a couple semi-slow DO primes in this range where zoom doesn't complicate and enlarge the design and as alternatives to fast and slow zoom options (assuming the 200-500/4 materializes)....Show more →
I find it comparable to the EF 500/4.5L in terms of sharpness or contrast wise to the 200-400L with the 1.4TC engaged(280-560).
The colours for me are muted and less saturated compared to today's modern equivalents. Colors similar to my 200/1.8. (In other words older ef glass)
The sharpest images occur in the 400-500mm range. When I shoot at 600 with a color body attached the contrast is slightly less than the 400-500 range but that improves if I step a 1/2 stop. That said I mainly shoot the lens at 5.6 with the rare increase to F8.
As far as edge to edge sharpness the 150-600 holds its own but the 200-400 is sharper.
The downside of using the 150-600 is no AF and the focus knob is part of the focal length slider so it takes a little more precision to nail the focus. Can get frustrating focusing making that tiny little adjustment. Shooting hand held is out of the question, though I have done it a couple of times just to try it you can't easily focus while handholding. I use it on a Wimberley with the 40 plate. Handles very nice on the Wimbelery.
Overall the 150-600L is very capable lens to capture that shot as long as you are more focused on slow or non moving subjects. I wouldn't think twice on using this lens versus more modern lenses I have as long as I have my Wimberley with me.
When I attach it to my M10M the images just can't be beat.
The biggest upside this lens comes with a very nice carrying handle and I often gets looks from people when they see me carrying it by the handle.
The 150-600L may not be to the same level as modern glass but the 150-600L is one of the lenses is for me a forever keeper.
and I often gets looks from people when they see me carrying it by the handle. 