Yuck. Just no. The one for the 100-500 sucks. Especially for how I pack.
melcat wrote:
Sorry, what was wrong with fitting an Arca-Swiss plate to the existing foot? I actually find my new lens with the stock foot and Acratech plate easier than the old one with the Kirk Arca-Swiss compatible foot. And yes, I did use them side-by-side when testing the new lens against the old.
No. I want it because I want to swap it with an arca swiss compatible one.
action99 wrote:
We are talking about removable collar… not feet big difference.
I do own a 100-300 and I replaced the foot with an arca swiss.
You want to remove the collar to save weight and be less on the way when handholding and it should be quick and tool-less.
The feet would be better that would be arca swiss to start with then non need to be removable and this is an issue of all big white.
You must have Jared Polin arms then. The point of a monopod is more than just SS. I’m big but I can’t handhold a 200-600 for very long. It’s very heavy.
AmbientMike wrote:
I mean, people clamor for a budget tele, then it comes out and people complain about it not having a more premium feature. I never got into the Arca Swiss stuff anyway
I didn't find monopods too effective at lowering ss. Lost mine, never got another. IS more effective at slow ss, monopod might help IS not sure about that though, not something I use, anyway
There is a legal problem, the largest camera and lens manufacturer in the world simply cannot favor one tripod head manufacturer's plate interface over others. (This information is from a Nikon executive who said that they can't do it because of laws against anti-competitive practices; Nikon isn't as high on market share than Canon obviously.)
Probably Manfrotto QR plates (in their various types) are more common than Arca-Swiss anyway. There is certainly an Arca-Swiss style bubble on some camera equipment forums online, though.
A flat bottom surface without sharp corners is more gentle on the hand when hand-holding than a sharp-edged Arca-Swiss dovetail. I suspect this kills the idea of standardization based on the Arca-Swiss design, many users who don't use tripods wouldn't have it. Almost zero penetration of the fluid head market is no doubt another significant factor, in my opinion a good fluid head is better for still photography with a long lens than heads more typically used by still photographers. I have a fluid head which does have Arca-Swiss quick-release interface but it's designed for a 70-200mm and just too small for an 800mm lens. If I want a proper sized fluid head for long lens photography, I have not been able to find one that is Arca-Swiss compatible.
Just get a plate and use this nice new lens on your favorite tripod or monopod head rather than make a lot of noise about something that will probably never happen.
crisdesign wrote:
I don’t think it’s a valid reason. The minority of users working with other mounts could still add their plate so for them it wouldn’t make a difference but for the majority arca swiss users it would make a difference, it’s a simple usability improvement.
Actually Tamron is probably the largest lens maker in the world. And my 100-500 has an arca swiss foot….
That’s the whole point of making the foot removable. Then you can swap on whatever you want. Which is how Canon used to design their lenses.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
There is a legal problem, the largest camera and lens manufacturer in the world simply cannot favor one tripod head manufacturer's plate interface over others. (This information is from a Nikon executive who said that they can't do it because of laws against anti-competitive practices; Nikon isn't as high on market share than Canon obviously.)
Probably Manfrotto QR plates (in their various types) are more common than Arca-Swiss anyway. There is certainly an Arca-Swiss style bubble on some camera equipment forums online, though.
A flat bottom surface without sharp corners is more gentle on the hand when hand-holding than a sharp-edged Arca-Swiss dovetail. I suspect this kills the idea of standardization based on the Arca-Swiss design, many users who don't use tripods wouldn't have it. Almost zero penetration of the fluid head market is no doubt another significant factor, in my opinion a good fluid head is better for still photography with a long lens than heads more typically used by still photographers. I have a fluid head which does have Arca-Swiss quick-release interface but it's designed for a 70-200mm and just too small for an 800mm lens. If I want a proper sized fluid head for long lens photography, I have not been able to find one that is Arca-Swiss compatible.
Just get a plate and use this nice new lens on your favorite tripod or monopod head rather than make a lot of noise about something that will probably never happen.
jwolfe wrote:
You must have Jared Polin arms then. The point of a monopod is more than just SS. I’m big but I can’t handhold a 200-600 for very long. It’s very heavy.
Thanks! Nice of you, and perhaps a little surprising, for you to say something positive on this thread. Actually I'm trying to get in shape better , wish I had bigger arms
I can see for hours on end at a football game, you'll see the guys who have big teles on monopods (I don't even remember if I used a head, probably attached directly to the 1/4&3/8 Bogen thread ) But I ran into an acquaintance last year carrying 2x D500, one having 200-500, which heavier than the 200-600, and one having 300pf, plus binoculars. He had good straps, let go if it all, said it weighed nothing, not too bad holding it up occasionally for nature photos of birds etc
action99 wrote:
Did you download and took a look at the RAW, watching bla bla in YT is worthless to evaluate image quality like sharpness?
Looked at the files.
And the same holds true. Nice images from a pre-production unit that was likely checked a few dozen times to insure it worked flawlessly. This tells me the lens has potential. Pull one off the shelf and have the same performance and image quality and you've got a lens that is exceptional.
I'd like to see a comparison of the 200-800mm with teleconverters and the 100-500mm with teleconverters. More times than not, 800mm will be enough but there will be times when you need more reach. For that matter... I can't say that I've seen any pre-production reviews where a teleconverter was used. Several mention them, but I can't say anyone has used one with the 200-800mm.
coppertop wrote:
...
And the same holds true. Nice images from a pre-production unit that was likely checked a few dozen times to insure it worked flawlessly. This tells me the lens has potential. Pull one off the shelf and have the same performance and image quality and you've got a lens that is exceptional.
I'd like to see a comparison of the 200-800mm with teleconverters and the 100-500mm with teleconverters. More times than not, 800mm will be enough but there will be times when you need more reach. For that matter... I can't say that I've seen any pre-production reviews where a teleconverter was used. Several mention them, but I can't say anyone has used one with the 200-800mm....Show more →
I´m pretty sure that the lens will be very good. It would be a completely incompetent decision by Canon to produce a lens that would not cope with the present day lenses as lenses tend to be with us for longer than bodies. Any design should last at least ten years of sensor development. My guess.
As for the converters, I would never put my money on a 2x combo if there is a longer lens that would have the same angle of view with a 1.4x. That said, the few tests I have made with R5 and the 100-500 with the RF 2x showed surprisingly good performance. At short distances, say out to 30m, it is very close to perfect over the 600-1000mm range it provides. At longer distances heat shimmer became obvious and all too often unavoidable. Diffraction was also starting to show up but was minute compared to the atmospherics. All handheld in very good spring light.
The 200-800 as 280-1120 should do even better. But there is not that much to improve that can be improved with these lenses. I suppose a big white at seven times the cost could improve the result a few more percents, mostly imaginary and not possible to say without knowing which optics were used. Of course a "clean" 800 or 1200 would do their magic, even though the RFs have their glued on optimized 2x.
Z250SA wrote:
As for the converters, I would never put my money on a 2x combo if there is a longer lens that would have the same angle of view with a 1.4x. That said, the few tests I have made with R5 and the 100-500 with the RF 2x showed surprisingly good performance. At short distances, say out to 30m, it is very close to perfect over the 600-1000mm range it provides. At longer distances heat shimmer became obvious and all too often unavoidable. Diffraction was also starting to show up but was minute compared to the atmospherics...
I can't say I disagree but would it be redundant to have both the 100-500mm and 200-800mm?
jwolfe wrote:
You must have Jared Polin arms then. The point of a monopod is more than just SS. I’m big but I can’t handhold a 200-600 for very long. It’s very heavy.
Another thing, if the 200-600 is too heavy, get the 100 500. Much lighter
jwolfe wrote:
You must have Jared Polin arms then. The point of a monopod is more than just SS. I’m big but I can’t handhold a 200-600 for very long. It’s very heavy.
I think Jared Polin even needs help handholding lenses. I've waited for over half an hour for an eagle to fly off from its perch. There's no way anyone could have kept a large telephoto on target that long without any support. Even with a monopod, staying on target in those situations are challenging.
coppertop wrote:
I can't say I disagree but would it be redundant to have both the 100-500mm and 200-800mm?
In my case it´s all about how much I use 100mm with the 100-500. At some trips it can be 50:50 or even more at 100, on other trips, especially in spring, the 100mm ratio can be down below 1:50, not so much counting 20fps bursts into that number.
So I do need 100mm and it is slightly concerning. But the need for 800mm is so much hotter. I just have to get the 100mm with the 24-105STM on the RP. Its just that 100mm with the 100-500 on the R5 is superior, perhaps not that much IQ wise, but because 100 is within the range I usually use the 100-500 for.
What I need is obviously a 100-800mm. From what I have gathered in this thread Nikon or Sony would be my best bet to get one since Canon only makes the wrong designs and decisions... // >irony<
Z250SA wrote:
In my case it´s all about how much I use 100mm with the 100-500. At some trips it can be 50:50 or even more at 100, on other trips, especially in spring, the 100mm ratio can be down below 1:50, not so much counting 20fps bursts into that number.
So I do need 100mm and it is slightly concerning. But the need for 800mm is so much hotter. I just have to get the 100mm with the 24-105STM on the RP. Its just that 100mm with the 100-500 on the R5 is superior, perhaps not that much IQ wise, but because 100 is within the range I usually use the 100-500 for.
What I need is obviously a 100-800mm. From what I have gathered in this thread Nikon or Sony would be my best bet to get one since Canon only makes the wrong designs and decisions... // >irony<...Show more →
The need for 100mm when I'm using the 100-500mm is minimal, if not non-existent. It's a lens I use to chase birds and very few allow me to get close enough where 100mm's is enough reach. More times than not, I'm using a 1.4x TC and 100mm is not even possible.
While I don't agree with everything Canon does, I bought into them back in the days of the Digital Rebel and haven't looked back. Had Pentax been more aggressive in the digital market back then, I would have stuck with them (shot with Pentax film cameras). What keeps tugging at me with the 200-800mm is that it's the first 800mm that I can reasonable afford without getting a second mortgage.
Having native 800mm's worth of reach is a major plus while chasing birds, but I also like the performance of the 100-500mm. Just not sure if it's insane to have both.
Z250SA wrote:
In my case it´s all about how much I use 100mm with the 100-500. At some trips it can be 50:50 or even more at 100, on other trips, especially in spring, the 100mm ratio can be down below 1:50, not so much counting 20fps bursts into that number.
So I do need 100mm and it is slightly concerning. But the need for 800mm is so much hotter. I just have to get the 100mm with the 24-105STM on the RP. Its just that 100mm with the 100-500 on the R5 is superior, perhaps not that much IQ wise, but because 100 is within the range I usually use the 100-500 for.
What I need is obviously a 100-800mm. From what I have gathered in this thread Nikon or Sony would be my best bet to get one since Canon only makes the wrong designs and decisions... // >irony<...Show more →
Where I find the short focal lengths useful on the RF 100-500 on my R5 is when photographing Owls at dawn and dusk. The aperture of the lens at 150mm is f4.5, so with a 50% crop of the image I get 300mm of reach at almost 2 stops lower than the max aperture of f7.1 at 500mm. In extremely low light situations that additional light can make all the difference.
Rudy Pohl wrote:
Where I find the short focal lengths useful on the RF 100-500 on my R5 is when photographing Owls at dawn and dusk. The aperture of the lens at 150mm is f4.5, so with a 50% crop of the image I get 300mm of reach at almost 2 stops lower than the max aperture of f7.1 at 500mm. In extremely low light situations that additional light can make all the difference.
Cropping at 150 mm to 50% and then enlarging to the same output size as if shooting at 300 mm also enlarges the noise grain, to a degree worth 2 stops in ISO setting. If your numbers are correct that would be a wash. However, f4.5 is only 1 1/3 stops faster than f/7.1, not almost 2 stops faster.
alundeb wrote:
Cropping at 150 mm to 50% and then enlarging to the same output size as if shooting at 300 mm also enlarges the noise grain, to a degree worth 2 stops in ISO setting. If your numbers are correct that would be a wash. However, f4.5 is only 1 1/3 stops faster than f/7.1, not almost 2 stops faster.
I don't enlarge back to the original size after cropping, I leave it at 1/2 size since I don't print my images but just post on Flickr.
Thanks for the correction re the total f-stops saved, my mistake.
I think I will keep my EF 100-400 II, as it is f/5 at 300mm and in its sweet spot. In some ways it is a marginally better complement to the 200-800 than the RF 100-500
I just have to get the 100mm with the 24-105STM on the RP. Its just that 100mm with the 100-500 on the R5 is superior, perhaps not that much IQ wise, but because 100 is within the range I usually use the 100-500 for.
// >irony<