arbitrage wrote:
CR says this is officially coming Nov 2nd.
200-800 f/6.3-f/9
800 f/9 is on par with the Nikon and Sony 180(200)-600 f/6.3 lenses with a TC.
But I wonder if they will have 600 be f/6.3 or if it will already be 7.1 or 8 or 9?
So is this perhaps the fabled RF 200-500 F4 that was rumored earlier this year to be released Q4 23 thus the rumor mill got it completely wrong this past spring? Wouldn't be the first time.
It appears Canon has abandoned fast great white RF wildlife lenses. At least until the completely revamped RF 600II and 800II comes along in another 5 years or so.
Had to chuckle at their last statement in this latest rumor where they said ...
"Both the RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM have been very popular,"
Does anyone here own the RF 600 f/11 or know anyone that owns that lens? The 800 sure, but not many have picked up the 600 that I'm aware of.
lighthound wrote:
Does anyone here own the RF 600 f/11 or know anyone that owns that lens? The 800 sure, but not many have picked up the 600 that I'm aware of.
I got a deal I could not resist and have found the 600/11 to be a very handy 960mm field of view on the R7. If there ever is a chance I´d need very long focal length on a trip, the 600/11 is far smaller and lighter than the 800/11. The Great f/11´s do very well in good light with the present sensors.
It is a shame that the 600/11 does not get more attention, especially on crop sensor and specifically on the R7. Huge number of pixels per duck in an extremely handy package. AND you will find the duck, which is not always the case with the R7 + 800/11 at 1280mm FoV. BIF is not too difficult with the 600, shorter and lighter as it is. The step up in difficulty with the 800 is far greater than the increase in focal length suggests.
lighthound wrote:
So is this perhaps the fabled RF 200-500 F4 that was rumored earlier this year to be released Q4 23 thus the rumor mill got it completely wrong this past spring? Wouldn't be the first time.
It appears Canon has abandoned fast great white RF wildlife lenses. At least until the completely revamped RF 600II and 800II comes along in another 5 years or so.
Had to chuckle at their last statement in this latest rumor where they said ...
"Both the RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM have been very popular,"
Does anyone here own the RF 600 f/11 or know anyone that owns that lens? The 800 sure, but not many have picked up the 600 that I'm aware of....Show more →
I'm confused as to what you mean when you say 'fast great RF wild life lenses'. They have 600/4, 800/5.6, 400/2, 120-300/2.8.
Most folks complain there is nothing between those lenses that cost as much as cars, and the entry level 100-400, an /11 lenses. So here we have something that POTENTIALLY sits in the middle. What else is missing?
nmerc_photos wrote:
I agree with Jan's assessment of the 100-500. it's the best 100-400 lens out there in terms of IQ and weight, but yeah it sucks using TC's with it.
a 200-800 zoom walk around lens would be a dream for me, but I don't think Canon is going to make it a reality.
I'd love to see a manufacturer make a more expensive 200-xx lens, something around $5K and under 4lbs. but given how the other manufacturers have gone, I think Canon will probably have it closer to an RF 800 F11 than say an EF 200-400 F4 in terms of pricing, performance, etc.
in order to compete with Sony/Nikon, Canon would likely have to make it a non L lens, little to no weatherproofing, and probably 5+ lbs
will be interesting to see for sure
I'm guessing 200-800 f6.3 - f9 priced around $2500 and weighing around 5lbs. non L glass....Show more →
looks like my guess was pretty close
200-800 f6.3-9 priced at $2000 USD
weight still remains to be seen
seems like it'll be a better version of the RF 600/800 F11, which is nice. The RF 800 F11 was one of my favorite canon lenses, and everyone loves zooms
lighthound wrote:
So is this perhaps the fabled RF 200-500 F4 that was rumored earlier this year to be released Q4 23 thus the rumor mill got it completely wrong this past spring? Wouldn't be the first time.
It appears Canon has abandoned fast great white RF wildlife lenses. At least until the completely revamped RF 600II and 800II comes along in another 5 years or so.
Had to chuckle at their last statement in this latest rumor where they said ...
"Both the RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM have been very popular,"
Does anyone here own the RF 600 f/11 or know anyone that owns that lens? The 800 sure, but not many have picked up the 600 that I'm aware of....Show more →
from what I've seen, the RF 800 f11 killed the RF 600 f11. why would you give up 200mm of reach, for the same aperture, and near same price?
everyone I know who tried the RF 600 F11 either went with an RF 800 F11 instead, or something else like the 100-500 or a big white.
jedibrain wrote:
I'm confused as to what you mean when you say 'fast great RF wild life lenses'. They have 600/4, 800/5.6, 400/2, 120-300/2.8.
Most folks complain there is nothing between those lenses that cost as much as cars, and the entry level 100-400, an /11 lenses. So here we have something that POTENTIALLY sits in the middle. What else is missing?
-Brian
I think he's speaking to how the rumors were:
100-300 f2.8 w/TC
200-500 f4 w/TC
two big misses to not use a TC, as well as potentially shelving the 200-500 which would be a phenomenal selling lens
also people argue that the RF 400 2.8 / RF 600 4 are just the EF versions with minimal improvements, and a built in adapter
same with the RF 800 5.6 / 1200 8 which are just EF 400/600 with internal TC's and adapters
lighthound wrote:
So is this perhaps the fabled RF 200-500 F4 that was rumored earlier this year to be released Q4 23 thus the rumor mill got it completely wrong this past spring? Wouldn't be the first time.
It appears Canon has abandoned fast great white RF wildlife lenses. At least until the completely revamped RF 600II and 800II comes along in another 5 years or so.
Had to chuckle at their last statement in this latest rumor where they said ...
"Both the RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM have been very popular,"
Does anyone here own the RF 600 f/11 or know anyone that owns that lens? The 800 sure, but not many have picked up the 600 that I'm aware of....Show more →
I saw one lady with the 600DO this past week. First time. I've seen a number of locals with the 800DO...usually 800DO over one shoulder and 100-500 over the other.
I think Nikon is putting Canon and Sony to shame these days for wildlife lenses.
lighthound wrote:
So is this perhaps the fabled RF 200-500 F4 that was rumored earlier this year to be released Q4 23 thus the rumor mill got it completely wrong this past spring? Wouldn't be the first time.
I hope not!
200-500/4 would have considerable interest for many applications, if the budget allows. I suspect Canon is feeling more heat for a relatively affordable enthusiast wildlife zoom than for a 200-500 in a space that currently can be addressed with numerous adapted EF and some native RF lenses (though most being primes and not zooms). Neither Sony or Nikon have anything like a 200-500/4 (Nikon users can adapt the F mount 180-400), but both have sub $2k enthusiast wildlife zooms that certainly would be higher volume sellers than a >$10k lens leading into the holiday shopping season.
nmerc_photos wrote:
also people argue that the RF 400 2.8 / RF 600 4 are just the EF versions with minimal improvements, and a built in adapter
And somehow that's not accurate? I don't know what improvements you speak of.
When the Fro did the initial review of the R3 he did it with the RF400, and in the recording you can see that it indicated (Hand)+ image stabilization. That to me indicated that there had to be a firmware update for the RF400 to enable that, or some strange R3 firmware. In any case, there was hope that the RF400 would be something other than an EF400 with a free adapter, but sadly no such luck. I'm still waiting for that firmware.
nmerc_photos wrote:
from what I've seen, the RF 800 f11 killed the RF 600 f11. why would you give up 200mm of reach, for the same aperture, and near same price?
For these reasons:
The 600 packs considerably smaller than the 800.
The IS is more effective on the 600 than the 800. With a longer focal length, you need more effective IS, not less, to get the same motion blur at the same shutter speed.
On a crop camera especially, 800 mm fixed focal length makes it considerably more difficult to acquire the target.
So while the 800 is a better lens for the money on paper, the rate of successful photography will decrease proportionally more. Which, honestly, goes for any increase in focal length. It is nothing specific for these lenses.
If it's got weather sealing, a good MFD, and an expanded AF area compared to the 800 f/11, SIGN ME UP. I've *really* been wanting a telephoto zoom to slot between my RF 100-400/800 and 500 II. I'd even considered upgrading to the R6 Mark II almost solely due to the AF area of the 800, so this lens could potentially save me money:P.
as well as potentially shelving the 200-500 which would be a phenomenal selling lens
Are you making stuff up?
Because Canon my ship a lens in a complete different price range, focal range and fstop it will mean that they are shelving 200-500 a potential 8x more expensive lens.
Btw regarding lack of innovation can you show me the other 100-300 2.8 that Nikon (Nikon has a DSLR 120-300 and heavy) and Sony (pre announced a fix 300 2.8 that has yet to materialize) have for their mirrorless system?
stanj wrote:
And somehow that's not accurate? I don't know what improvements you speak of.
When the Fro did the initial review of the R3 he did it with the RF400, and in the recording you can see that it indicated (Hand)+ image stabilization. That to me indicated that there had to be a firmware update for the RF400 to enable that, or some strange R3 firmware. In any case, there was hope that the RF400 would be something other than an EF400 with a free adapter, but sadly no such luck. I'm still waiting for that firmware.
Canon says the RF 400/2.8 and RF 600/4 take advantage of faster AF with the R3 (and other bodies in the future) that have so called dual power supply.
""Weight-wise, the RF lenses are similar to their EF counterparts," Vladimir says, "but their speed is impressive. The RF lenses were faster to use, with the autofocus and the image stabilisation feeling much more precise. The RF mount allows for so much more data to be transferred in a short period of time, and this faster communication between the lens and the camera really does make a difference when you're shooting."
Mike Burnhill, Professional Imaging Product Specialist at Canon Europe, explains that the enhanced autofocus speed with the Canon EOS R3 is down to Dual Power AF. "These two super-telephoto lenses are the first to need the dual power supply," he says. "The optical groups in these lenses are much larger than those used in other lenses, so we drive them with large, high-torque, ring-type USM motors. There are actually two power inputs into these motors. The more power you feed into the motor, the faster it turns, and therefore the faster the autofocus speed can be."
The Canon EOS R3 is the first EOS R System camera that can take full advantage of lenses with Dual Power AF, thanks to its more powerful LP-E19 battery pack. "You need more voltage to drive the motor, which would have had too much impact on the battery life of earlier EOS R System bodies," explains Mike."
I'm not really a supertelephoto guy, but I can see this being a great seller. It's faster than the 800/11, while 4x zooming at the same time. The price is somewhat attainable for the average Joe as well.
Has Canon ever made an 800mm zoom before? This is a bit of a ground breaking lens here. I like what they're doing in making these huge focal length lenses attainable for the general population.
Z250SA wrote:
I got a deal I could not resist and have found the 600/11 to be a very handy 960mm field of view on the R7. If there ever is a chance I´d need very long focal length on a trip, the 600/11 is far smaller and lighter than the 800/11. The Great f/11´s do very well in good light with the present sensors.
It is a shame that the 600/11 does not get more attention, especially on crop sensor and specifically on the R7. Huge number of pixels per duck in an extremely handy package. AND you will find the duck, which is not always the case with the R7 + 800/11 at 1280mm FoV. BIF is not too difficult with the 600, shorter and lighter as it is. The step up in difficulty with the 800 is far greater than the increase in focal length suggests....Show more →
You are the very first person that I know of here or out in the field that is using the 600 f/11 hence my comment. I agree with all your points for the practical use of that lens on a cropper vs the 800. Trying to shoot through a straw for BIF isn't enjoyable at all. When I first learned of the R7 coming, the 600 f/11 was the lens I immediately thought of that would make for a killer budget wildlife combo. However, if budget isn't a concern then I think most R7 users have or would opt for the flexibility of the RF 100-500 hands down.
---------------------------------------------
jedibrain wrote:
I'm confused as to what you mean when you say 'fast great RF wild life lenses'. They have 600/4, 800/5.6, 400/2, 120-300/2.8.
Most folks complain there is nothing between those lenses that cost as much as cars, and the entry level 100-400, an /11 lenses. So here we have something that POTENTIALLY sits in the middle. What else is missing?
-Brian
I forgot to add the RF 400/2.8 to the list but I'm referring to "from the ground up" RF great white lenses. I personally don't consider the 120-300/2.8 a wildlife lens even though a few sports photogs will dual purpose them as one. That lens is a sports shooters dream lens.
I think we all know and agree that the 400 600 800 1200 are NOT fresh new designs for the RF system. From all reports they are fantastic lenses that are superior to the EF lenses but they simply are not what they could be as true RF designed great whites. Smaller and lighter. I think we all know that, which is why I think the mark II versions will not be too far down the road like the traditional life cycles of (7-10yrs avg). Releasing the current RF designs on the heels of the very recently released EF mark III's was a brilliant no brainer move by Canon as a business decision which has also made many wildlife shooters very happy.
Canon must introduce the true RF 400 & 600 in a timely fashion to stay competitive. With Nikon scrambling to survive they have been pumping out some fantastic wildlife lenses at desperate lowball prices and it seems to be working for them for right now.
sebjmatthews wrote:
That is literally not at all how these things ever work, in any way whatsoever, and I can't fathom why you'd think that was even remotely a possibility.
I have friends who have previously worked in Canon EU/UK distribution and marketing, as well as other friends in similar roles at other companies. I also know a lot of people who have been in the photographic media, including multiple people who have been blacklisted by various companies for leaking or facilitating leaks of new products. I, myself, am still blacklisted by Fuji for being part of the X-T2 leaks, and that was in 2016.
There is absolutely, categorically, no possibility whatsoever that Canon are giving away their plans to C-tier YouTubers, let alone directing them to publicize rumours and speculation for marketing. That is an insane suggestion. Canon have taken people to court for leaking plans and products.
Please stop believing, let alone pushing on others, the idea that anyone on YouTube knows anything more than any random forum users, other than the very top A-tier channels who sign NDAs and only publish information on or after the official announcements. I mean people like Chris & Jordan, Gordon Laing, those are the kinds of outlets who actually are given information ahead of the public. They're also the ones who don't report rumours as facts, you'll notice.
95% of what you see on YouTube is just people desperately speculating in order to have an excuse to upload something and get more clicks. Please don't try to give it any more weight or meaning than that.
edit: To be clear, Jan has, what, 70k subscribers? Canon don't even give the Northrups much info these days, and they've got 1.6 million subscribers. I can't imagine what marketing value you think there is in giving leaks to such a small channel....Show more →
Your diatribe seems ironic since you are relying on input from "friends" working within Canon as a basis for your statements. Who are these friends? What positions within Canon do they hold? Give us information or your definitive comments have no more validity than any others being made. The fact is that Canon does leak information about new product releases and this information has come from people who do not have a large YouTube presence. Who feeds CR the info they post? When a person makes such absolute, definitive statements like you have done here, it puts what you say in doubt unless you provide specific information as to why your claims are valid.
stanj wrote:
And somehow that's not accurate? I don't know what improvements you speak of.
When the Fro did the initial review of the R3 he did it with the RF400, and in the recording you can see that it indicated (Hand)+ image stabilization. That to me indicated that there had to be a firmware update for the RF400 to enable that, or some strange R3 firmware. In any case, there was hope that the RF400 would be something other than an EF400 with a free adapter, but sadly no such luck. I'm still waiting for that firmware.
hey, I'm on the same side as you.
having owned every version of the Canon 600 F4 (MK I, II, III, and RF), I don't see any noticeable differences. Canon -claims- the RF big whites gain a speed advantage when used with the R3, but it's the only body able to provide that difference.
That (hand)+ thing you're talking about might be the R3 only thing I'm talking about, dunno. I no longer shoot canon.
I just try to lay out the arguments as objectively as possible, without trying to sway people based on opinion or picking one side or another
action99 wrote:
Are you making stuff up?
Because Canon my ship a lens in a complete different price range, focal range and fstop it will mean that they are shelving 200-500 a potential 8x more expensive lens.
Btw regarding lack of innovation can you show me the other 100-300 2.8 that Nikon (Nikon has a DSLR 120-300 and heavy) and Sony (pre announced a fix 300 2.8 that has yet to materialize) have for their mirrorless system?
which part of the quote do you disagree with or think is made up?
FWIW - the logic was not that "because Canon is releasing a much cheaper 200-800, they must not be producing the 200-500". two separate ideas. #1 the 200-800 is confirmed, and #2 the 200-500 remains to be seen and rumors allege it will be less desirable (no TC) than initially leaked. sorry if that was not clear.
admittedly I don't keep up with all of Canon's latest rumors, but last I heard they pushed back the release date (if there will be one) of the 200-500, and they confirmed dropping the TC
to me that is huge. I'd like to imagine a world where every telephoto lens costing more than $9K USD includes a TC. it seems like such a large improvement.
and for Canon to just give that up, seems silly. but - of course they know their market share and costs better than any of us. it just may mean that those of us who would prefer to shoot Canon, continue swapping or using Nikon until Canon catches up - if they ever decide to
as for the 100-300 2.8, you may call it innovational, I do not. a 120-300 or 100-300 has been done in the past. Canon is just the first to do it in a lighter, more recent model. if it ends up being a desirable lens, no doubt Sony and Nikon will release theirs in time.
similar to lighthound, I do not consider 100-300 to be a wildlife lens. even less so without a built in TC.
nmerc_photos wrote:
That (hand)+ thing you're talking about might be the R3 only thing I'm talking about, dunno. I no longer shoot canon.
It's not an R3 thing (I shoot owls with the R3 and RF400), it's a Fro only thing. He was given a non-standard R3 and/or RF400 from Canon for the video, and the production version never got the firmware that enables (hand)+. The 100-500 shipped without (hand)+, too, and later got it in FW. The RF400 never got enabled for the mere mortals. Was part of the reason why I got that lens. Oh well.
I'm pretty sure they're not sacrificing the 200-500 f/4 for this lens. But I also think that it'll be announced next year, perhaps at the same time as the R5 II.
The 800 sure, but not many have picked up the 600 that I'm aware of.
