Frankly if it isn’t I can grab a 600mm f4 and add a TC. If I shot Nikon I could grab the 800mm pf. The only thing Canon has is an enormous 800mm 5.6 that’s $17k. And it’s crazy heavy. Which is the whole point of my comments.
AmbientMike wrote:
Good thing. If 600mm is long enough for you. 200-600+tc is f/9, too.
rscheffler wrote:
^ Yes, it's a hidden feature you seek.
Just to get a better understanding, with which camera models and lenses do you have recent hands-on experience?
I have all three systems and I'd tend to agree, for birds and wildlife. My Nikon kit is the smallest but I lust after the longer lenses they have now. I don't think it's a big a difference as some make it out to be either. So not WAY behind. Even my XH2 and 150-600 is pretty reliable. But I do like my A1 for birds and wildlife.
I do like my R5 for people though. Only the A7R5 is slightly better, for me and I LOVE the 28-70 on the R5. I also like the Canon 100-500 over the others 100-400 offerings.
Reality is it's hard to find a bad camera now. As soon as I see the inevitable, *this is shit* or *this is revolutionary* claims, I switch off. If you're in the Canon ecosystem, and not me, it's unlikely you'll swap out to Nikon because they have the PF primes. And you'll be happy the 200-800 exists. Mind you some aren't happy, no matter what.
jwolfe wrote:
Frankly if it isn’t I can grab a 600mm f4 and add a TC. If I shot Nikon I could grab the 800mm pf. The only thing Canon has is an enormous 800mm 5.6 that’s $17k. And it’s crazy heavy. Which is the whole point of my comments.
If you could point me to the Sony 800mm?
Canon has at least 2 different 800/5.6's, extremely light 800/11, and a 200-800 that's lighter and less expensive than your 200-600, in addition to the extra reach.
I’m a creative person and an engineer. So lazy design just drives me insane. Like how much would it have cost to make that lens foot removable? Or tweak the optics slightly to spread out the f stops better. It’s just objectively bad design. Just like the tripod foot on the 100-500 and how it takes TCs. It’s just plain bad design.
flash wrote:
I have all three systems and I'd tend to agree, for birds and wildlife. My Nikon kit is the smallest but I lust after the longer lenses they have now. I don't think it's a big a difference as some make it out to be either. So not WAY behind. Even my XH2 and 150-600 is pretty reliable. But I do like my A1 for birds and wildlife.
I do like my R5 for people though. Only the A7R5 is slightly better, for me and I LOVE the 28-70 on the R5. I also like the Canon 100-500 over the others 100-400 offerings.
Reality is it's hard to find a bad camera now. As soon as I see the inevitable, *this is shit* or *this is revolutionary* claims, I switch off. If you're in the Canon ecosystem, and not me, it's unlikely you'll swap out to Nikon because they have the PF primes. And you'll be happy the 200-800 exists. Mind you some aren't happy, no matter what.
They are literally the exact same price and almost the same weight. A Sony 600mm f4 + 1.4 = 840mm at f5.6. It’s sharp as a tack.
I’m not begrudging Canon for making the lens. I’m begrudging the design of the lens.
AmbientMike wrote:
If you could point me to the Sony 800mm?
Canon has at least 2 different 800/5.6's, extremely light 800/11, and a 200-800 that's lighter and less expensive than your 200-600, in addition to the extra reach.
jwolfe wrote:
I’m a creative person and an engineer. So lazy design just drives me insane. Like how much would it have cost to make that lens foot removable? Or tweak the optics slightly to spread out the f stops better. It’s just objectively bad design. Just like the tripod foot on the 100-500 and how it takes TCs. It’s just plain bad design.
Well, a minute ago you didn't like tc's. but you have to have one to get to 800mm on Sony. Is that good design, in your book?
Before that you expected all these extras on more price competitive lens.
jwolfe wrote:
Frankly if it isn’t I can grab a 600mm f4 and add a TC. If I shot Nikon I could grab the 800mm pf. The only thing Canon has is an enormous 800mm 5.6 that’s $17k. And it’s crazy heavy. Which is the whole point of my comments.
Anyone else seeing a bloke with a pile of big Nikon primes feverishly switching from one to an other as he needs 800mm, 456mm, 380mm, 800 again, 710mm, 200mm... Aw, should have got Canon and 200-800, poor (literally) guy! Ok, not as poor as the one beside him with the pile of big whites.
Again for like the third time I don’t shoot Nikon except for my D780 when I’m digitizing film. I shoot white lenses but they are made by Sony.
Z250SA wrote:
Anyone else seeing a bloke with a pile of big Nikon primes feverishly switching from one to an other as he needs 800mm, 456mm, 380mm, 800 again, 710mm, 200mm... Aw, should have got Canon and 200-800, poor (literally) guy! Ok, not as poor as the one beside him with the pile of big whites.
jwolfe wrote:
I’m a creative person and an engineer. So lazy design just drives me insane. Like how much would it have cost to make that lens foot removable? Or tweak the optics slightly to spread out the f stops better. It’s just objectively bad design. Just like the tripod foot on the 100-500 and how it takes TCs. It’s just plain bad design.
Yes and yes. The TC design on the 100-500 is something that's actually gotten in the way when I've been using it.... Hate it.
flash wrote:
Yes and yes. The TC design on the 100-500 is something that's actually gotten in the way when I've been using it.... Hate it.
Gordon
That has never bothered me and I like how compact the 100-500 is without it. In 3 years I bet I don't have a single shot with less than 400mm. Most are between 600-700mm. I like it.
I have never said I don’t like teleconverters. Like most tools they are great in the right situation. Right now I don’t see the point vs cropping on a 200-600. However a zoom is a very different animal than a high end prime.
AmbientMike wrote:
Well, a minute ago you didn't like tc's. but you have to have one to get to 800mm on Sony. Is that good design, in your book?
Before that you expected all these extras on more price competitive lens.
jwolfe wrote:
Again for like the third time I don’t shoot Nikon except for my D780 when I’m digitizing film. I shoot white lenses but they are made by Sony.
jwolfe wrote:
I’m a creative person and an engineer. So lazy design just drives me insane. Like how much would it have cost to make that lens foot removable? Or tweak the optics slightly to spread out the f stops better. It’s just objectively bad design. Just like the tripod foot on the 100-500 and how it takes TCs. It’s just plain bad design.
Yes, I totally agree on the bad design part. I have designed almost thirty different boats for very different needs of the customers. I get really annoyed when looking at all the bad designs around mostly made for the good looks that brings profit as well as cumbersome characteristics sometimes close to uselessness.
But! You list all those _very_ good lenses that ALL have one thing in common. They are financial madness or totally out of reach for many of us. And, on the design part, if a lens is _both_ comparably very heavy _and_ lack e.g. 200-799mm or 601-800mm THAT is very bad design too. For the intended use, as you so very well know, the use is the origo around which every other design decision is made. And yes, the non removable foot is bad, though I might find it to be a good handle when walking the woods. I never use tripods except for timelaps. Better to find the foot half usable than half useless!
jwolfe wrote:
I’m a creative person and an engineer. So lazy design just drives me insane. Like how much would it have cost to make that lens foot removable? Or tweak the optics slightly to spread out the f stops better. It’s just objectively bad design. Just like the tripod foot on the 100-500 and how it takes TCs. It’s just plain bad design.
Funny to call bad and lazy design to the first and only 200-800 FF on the market.... and at an affordable price.
This bad design lens will sell a ton, I downloaded some RAWs and is surprisingly very sharp at 800mm F9, it is affordable and quite light weight for the length.
Yes they could have done an internal zoom 200-800 f6.3 much heavier, much longer and bulky to pack and probably at 15k usd.... and it will evntually come 200-500 F4 + 2TC
Again nothing in the market like this lens so call it a bad design seems a big stretch... sales and how people will like it and use it will be the truth...
action99 wrote:
Funny to call bad and lazy design to the first and only 200-800 FF on the market.... and at an affordable price.
This bad design lens will sell a ton, I downloaded some RAWs and is surprisingly very sharp at 800mm F9, it is affordable and quite light weight for the length.
Yes they could have done an internal zoom 200-800 f6.3 much heavier, much longer and bulky to pack and probably at 15k usd.... and it will evntually come 200-500 F4 + 2TC
Again nothing in the market like this lens so call it a bad design seems a big stretch... sales and how people will like it and use it will be the truth......Show more →
action99 wrote:
Funny to call bad and lazy design to the first and only 200-800 FF on the market.... and at an affordable price.
This bad design lens will sell a ton, I downloaded some RAWs and is surprisingly very sharp at 800mm F9, it is affordable and quite light weight for the length.
Yes they could have done an internal zoom 200-800 f6.3 much heavier, much longer and bulky to pack and probably at 15k usd.... and it will evntually come 200-500 F4 + 2TC
Again nothing in the market like this lens so call it a bad design seems a big stretch... sales and how people will like it and use it will be the truth......Show more →
Well said. Agree 100%
It's unfortunate for Canon shooters that Canon never innovates and just keeps using old parts out of the parts bins.
RF 28-70 f/2 -Worlds first
RF 24-105 f/2.8 - World first
RF 20-800 f/6.3-9 - Worlds first
Just to name a few recents
You always know when Canon does something right. The trolls and arm chair expert camera/lens design engineers come out of the woodwork here on the Canon forum.
I will say this though. I hope Canon does follow Nikon's lead on making affordable fast(ish) primes and zooms. If Canon makes the rumored 200-500 an f/4 it'll be far too expensive for mere mortals like myself. I'm praying they make it an f/4.5 or maybe (not highly desired) f/5.6 to keep the price down a bit to fill the void between $2600 (100-500) and $12,000 (400/2.8). Something in the range of $5k would make a ton of people very happy.
I’m no fanboy of anyone. I think all three manufacturers have bad designs. But for its intended purpose this lens is a bad design. Canons RF long glass is a mess. And I’m certainly not the only one with that opinion. Scroll up. And I hear a lot in the field.
That said the R3 is a great camera. I know a lot of sports shooters that love it. And their shorter glass is very very good whereas I think Nikon has less to offer. No company is perfect. They are all tools. But to me in this case I think there’s a lot of missed opportunity.
While I think the 200-800mm is a very appealing lens, with the 100-500mm already in the bag, I think I'm going to pick up a 2x teleconverter instead. Then sock the savings into upgrading the R6 to a R6 Mark II. If I didn't already own the 100-500mm, the new lens would be a no brainer.
Just looking for a little more reach when I chase coastal birds and while light is always a concern, it's not like I'm shooting night high school football games with this setup.
Crazy for this line of thought or would I be foolish not to pick up a 200-800mm?
coppertop wrote:
While I think the 200-800mm is a very appealing lens, with the 100-500mm already in the bag, I think I'm going to pick up a 2x teleconverter instead. Then sock the savings into upgrading the R6 to a R6 Mark II. If I didn't already own the 100-500mm, the new lens would be a no brainer.
Just looking for a little more reach when I chase coastal birds and while light is always a concern, it's not like I'm shooting night high school football games with this setup.
Crazy for this line of thought or would I be foolish not to pick up a 200-800mm?...Show more →
Not too crazy. The 100-500 with 1.4x is basically the same speed as the 200-800. The 2x gets you to 1000mm f/14. The 200--800 with 1.4x would be 1100mm f/13. So they are pretty similar. MTF charts, which are just charts, indicate the bare 200-800 will be slighlty better than the 100-500 with TC, but the difference may not be practically visibile. And you already have the 100-500, which means the cost between a TC and the 200-800 would have to justify the optical difference. That's probably some of the most expensive IQ improvement out there.
I have the EF 100-400II. Never bought the 100-500, as the extra 100mm wasn't quite enough to justify a pretty big upgrade cost. I'm getting the 200-800 though. Those two will complement each other well I think. And the new lens will replace my 800mm f/11, most likely.
