Flowernut wrote:
I'd been willing to settle for 200-600 f5.6 for example that would accept a 1.4x converter.
That's a pretty cool thing to settle for, something like the EF200-400 just physically longer Even with new materials probably not that much lighter, either.
Flowernut wrote:
I'd been willing to settle for 200-600 f5.6 for example that would accept a 1.4x converter. 800mm and it's realtive slow apertures worries me. I got burned once and so I'm a little hesitant until something is in the hands of everyone rather than the mfg select few for a day. For those who have bought in advance, I hope it is all it appears to you to be.
You'd be looking at a lens that would be a minimum of $6000. While DO/PF optics can compress the length of a lens, I am not aware of any technology that can shrink the minimum front element size as it relates to the focal length : aperture ratio. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the front element of a 600mm f/5.6 would have to be at least 107mm. I'd be interested in this lens... but as StanJ points out, this is basically a 200-400 f/4 with 1.4x, and we know how expensive that lens is or was.
I shoot Nikon, but I am watching this thread for my close friend who shoots Canon (not a forum guy). He has been slowly transitioning to the R-system and has relied on crop 7Di and ii cameras to meet his songbird photography desires. He recently bought an R7 w/ 100-500, but wanted the R6II for its lowlight capabilities. He went with the R7 to get a 700mm field of view. While the 200-800 is relatively slow, its practical value is high for a field researcher (he works for the WI DNR) who surveys song bird reproductive habitats.
stanj wrote:
That's a pretty cool thing to settle for, something like the EF200-400 just physically longer Even with new materials probably not that much lighter, either.
I'm still yearning for the 150-600 f5.6L FD lens. It was $$ and heavy but what a lens. 200-400 Is short (in my opinion) as many nikon users I knew found. Canon tried to correct for this in their version with the 1.4x drop in converter. I've tended to use the 200-400 with the external 1.4 permanently attached making it a 420-560 f5.6. If I need more than 560 I can quickly add the drop in converter. I've found 500 a good general purpose focal length but 600 better for many things and rarely use the 500 any more just the 200-400 and the 600 f4. The lens I'm suggesting i think could replace both.
Flowernut wrote:
I'd been willing to settle for 200-600 f5.6 for example that would accept a 1.4x converter.
Flowernut wrote:
I've found 500 a good general purpose focal length but 600 better for many things and rarely use the 500 any more just the 200-400 and the 600 f4. The lens I'm suggesting i think could replace both.
Maybe for you. Not if you need f/4 like I did today doing a youth hockey tournament where two of the four rinks were 1/500 f/4 ISO 25600.
Maybe eventually Canon will offer the 100-300/2.8, 200-500/4, and a 200-600/5.6 in addition to the new 200-800...
OwlsEyes wrote:
... He recently bought an R7 w/ 100-500, but wanted the R6II for its lowlight capabilities. He went with the R7 to get a 700mm field of view....
Perhaps just a typo, but with the 100-500 on the R7 (my main gear last season) he gets 160-800mm as the Canon crop factor is 1.6x. But he will have a superior body with the R62, but loose a few PPP (pixels per passerine). I was not particularly fond of the R7 (compared to my R5).
Z250SA wrote:
Perhaps just a typo, but with the 100-500 on the R7 (my main gear last season) he gets 160-800mm as the Canon crop factor is 1.6x. But he will have a superior body with the R62, but loose a few PPP (pixels per passerine). I was not particularly fond of the R7 (compared to my R5).
Oh right... I'm a Nikon shooter and DX = 1.5x or 750mm FOV.
Regardless, the R7 tics the boxes for focal length, but the build and low ISO performance of a R6II is super-desirable, as he does nest surveys which often puts him in thick bogs and heavily forested habitat. I suspect that he would keep the R7 for additional "pixels per duck," but would benefit from the improved sensor performance of the R6II... the R5 was out of budget. At the time, a grant provided him with enough money to go with either an R5 w/ RF 100-400 and wide-angle zoom OR R7 with 100-500L and adapt his existing WA zoom. He went with the lens over the body. He continues to use a 7D w/ 400 f5.6L when doing surveys from his kayak because the gear often gets dropped in the mud or shallow pools of water... this guy does not baby his hit, some of the worst looking gear I've ever seen
Z250SA wrote:
In addition to slow and not a L, it will be very handholdable and carryaroundable, especially compared to the big white non-zoom lenses. If it fits your style, it is unmatched with the 200-800 range in one small(ish) package. But if you crave those totally mushed out backgrounds, no.
it should do similar to 400/4 & 300/2.8 for bg, it's f/9 but 800mm.
AmbientMike wrote:
it should do similar to 400/4 & 300/2.8 for bg, it's f/9 but 800mm.
Half of 800/9 is 400/4.5, and the FL is longer.
OK, interesting! I´m not familiar with that part of the optical math as I mostly find the washed out backgrounds rather boring, often enough just ugly blobs. It is perhaps artistic but definitely not holistic.
AmbientMike wrote:
it should do similar to 400/4 & 300/2.8 for bg, it's f/9 but 800mm.
Half of 800/9 is 400/4.5, and the FL is longer.
Z250SA wrote:
OK, interesting! I´m not familiar with that part of the optical math as I mostly find the washed out backgrounds rather boring, often enough just ugly blobs. It is perhaps artistic but definitely not holistic.
While mathematically correct, it assumes 400mm and 800mm. Thing is, if I can fill the frame with "it" with my 400/4, I can fill it with the 200-800 at 400, too, not at 800, and then the DOF is different because the zoom won't be at f4. The comparison only really applies when I get the subject frame filling at 800, and with the 400/4 I end up cropping most of it away to obtain the same FOV.
stanj wrote:
While mathematically correct, it assumes 400mm and 800mm. Thing is, if I can fill the frame with "it" with my 400/4, I can fill it with the 200-800 at 400, too, not at 800, and then the DOF is different because the zoom won't be at f4. The comparison only really applies when I get the subject frame filling at 800, and with the 400/4 I end up cropping most of it away to obtain the same FOV.
If you fill the frame at 800mm f/9, vs filling the frame at 400/4, you'll probably actually have less bg on the 800mm since you have a longer FL. of course you'd be closer on the 400mm
Of course if you filled the frame using 800/9 then cropped 400/4 to 800mm you'd probably have more bg than 800mm. Which is often the way it goes on birds
AmbientMike wrote:
If you fill the frame at 800mm f/9, vs filling the frame at 400/4, you'll probably actually have less bg on the 800mm since you have a longer FL. of course you'd be closer on the 400mm
Of course if you filled the frame using 800/9 then cropped 400/4 to 800mm you'd probably have more bg than 800mm. Which is often the way it goes on birds
Yes. Focal length and cropping are huge factors in background blur. Can you tell which was shot at 560/8 and which was shot at 200/2.8 and cropped?
Mike_5D wrote:
Yes. Focal length and cropping are huge factors in background blur. Can you tell which was shot at 560/8 and which was shot at 200/2.8 and cropped?
I thought about it, and 400/4 cropped to 800mm is probably about the same dof as 800/8. A little less, 1/3 stop, f9 vs f8
However, I tested them, and the difference between 200/2.8 & 85/1.4 is pretty massive, if you filled the frame. Similar test to 400 vs 800mm, try it using 560mm vs 200mm at the same aperture opening filling the frame on the ball no cropping
200mm vs 85mm you got a lot more of the bg on 85mm, so you night be able to get the shape of tree vs much less distracting oof greenery on a tree using 200mm. Should be the same 400 vs 800, much more narrow field on bg so.less of the bg if you fill the frame
DoF comparisons are interesting and all that, I just wonder which zoom lens I should get for more background blur at 800 mm?
In the comparison from Mike_5D above, we see that the quality of the blur is also important. There should not be many weeks until we can see some examples.
AmbientMike wrote:
I thought about it, and 400/4 cropped to 800mm is probably about the same dof as 800/8. A little less, 1/3 stop, f9 vs f8
However, I tested them, and the difference between 200/2.8 & 85/1.4 is pretty massive, if you filled the frame. Similar test to 400 vs 800mm, try it using 560mm vs 200mm at the same aperture opening filling the frame on the ball no cropping
200mm vs 85mm you got a lot more of the bg on 85mm, so you night be able to get the shape of tree vs much less distracting oof greenery on a tree using 200mm. Should be the same 400 vs 800, much more narrow field on bg so.less of the bg if you fill the frame ...Show more →
Well yeah, filling the frame changes everything. When I shot these, I was more interested in the DOF differences when choosing between a fast lens that's too short, requiring cropping, or a much slower lens with enough reach.
Filling the frame with the lens of choice or getting more than three pixels per duck are two totally separate scenarios. I´d love to put most of the 45Mps on any bird with my 135 Aposonnar or 250 Superachromat, but only urban or dead birds cooperate with none of the former in my area.
I´m actually slightly p!ssed now that I haven´t tried the 100-500+2x more than once, despite the surprisingly good result. f/12.6 at 800mm, hmm, f/9 should show less diffraction, though f/14.2 at 1000mm was far better than expected. Either lens could be thrown with the R5 to get the R52. There will be some testing before that for sure.
And it hits me that we are discussing 800-1000mm lenses of THIS quality AND at a price point within reach, especially with the mighty f/11 pair. What a World, what a time!
Z250SA wrote:
Filling the frame with the lens of choice or getting more than three pixels per duck are two totally separate scenarios. I´d love to put most of the 45Mps on any bird with my 135 Aposonnar or 250 Superachromat, but only urban or dead birds cooperate with none of the former in my area.
I´m actually slightly p!ssed now that I haven´t tried the 100-500+2x more than once, despite the surprisingly good result. f/12.6 at 800mm, hmm, f/9 should show less diffraction, though f/14.2 at 1000mm was far better than expected. Either lens could be thrown with the R5 to get the R52. There will be some testing before that for sure.
And it hits me that we are discussing 800-1000mm lenses of THIS quality AND at a price point within reach, especially with the mighty f/11 pair. What a World, what a time! ...Show more →
It wasn't long ago that 400 mm was about as long as you could get without a major financial commitment. Sure, there were 3rd party zooms that hit 500-600 mm, but the quality wasn't any better than just cropping a Canon L lens @ 400 mm. Even adding a 1.4x TC to a 400 mm lens wasn't good unless you wanted to focus manually or owned a 1D. Now we have affordable 800 mm lenses that will AF on sub $1000 bodies even with a 2x TC.
stanj wrote:
How many other 800mm zoom options are there?
Yes, it was a rhetorical question.
If we count using teleconverters and equivalents to 800 mm, there are many. But none of the usable ones are faster by any significant amount.
The talk about f/9 being slow at 800 mm doesn't make any sense. No usable zooms are any faster, and the primes are only 1+ stop faster, which is not much.
As a follow-up to my previous comparison, I did one tonight at dusk. 400 mm, f/5.6, ISO 100k vs 200 mm, f/2.8, ISO 25k. This represents a choice I had to make a few months ago: Reach vs ISO. Surely such an extreme ISO at 400mm would obliterate detail so badly that it wouldn't be worth using the longer lens, right? After cropping the 200mm image and downsizing both to 2500 pixels wide, to represent a typical online viewing size, I was surprised to see more detail in the 400 mm image. I could clearly read words on the 400 mm image that were illegible on the 200 mm image.
If you're looking to create art, find better light. If you need to capture events that will never happen again, use the right focal length first until you run out of ISO rather than cropping a faster lens that's way too short.
Even with new materials probably not that much lighter, either.
