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.
I preorderd the 200-800. So was never afraid of the f/9. But that's an interesting way to look at it. 1 1/3 stop is what you give up compared to the RF800L. You gain zoom. You surely lose some IQ and build quality as well. But its smaller and lighter too. And about 10-15% the cost.
Only one stop slower than the Nikon 800 6.3. IQ comparison will be interesting. But again, half or a third the cost.
jedibrain wrote:
I preorderd the 200-800. So was never afraid of the f/9. But that's an interesting way to look at it. 1 1/3 stop is what you give up compared to the RF800L. You gain zoom. You surely lose some IQ and build quality as well. But its smaller and lighter too. And about 10-15% the cost.
Only one stop slower than the Nikon 800 6.3. IQ comparison will be interesting. But again, half or a third the cost.
Brian
Looking forward to your thoughts on this lens once you get some quality alone time with it.
coppertop wrote:
That unboxing video was painful.
And I gave up after 10 minutes.
Glad to see some shipping out.
10 MINUTES? I scroll out a bit, and once I saw that orange liquid inside a guiness glass, I just closed it down....
B&H is claiming next week and similar to other major vendors (Canon's store included) - pre-order status; so not sure if indeed anyone is getting it yet - maybe outside the US?
I thought a focus limiter would be really great, until I got a lens having one. Didn't help me at the time, maybe if it could be turned off really fast and I memorized the position it could be useful. I'm at mfd a lot though so might not help me much
AmbientMike wrote:
I thought a focus limiter would be really great, until I got a lens having one. Didn't help me at the time, maybe if it could be turned off really fast and I memorized the position it could be useful. I'm at mfd a lot though so might not help me much
I find it makes a difference with my 100-500 and my old EF 100-400 II. I came across this video about a week ago. He gets into it at 8:10.
Zenon Char wrote:
I find it makes a difference with my 100-500 and my old EF 100-400 II. I came across this video about a week ago. He gets into it at 8:10.
&t=2s
Been doing that for years, I'm not sure if most people understand getting the focus close improves af speed, just doesn't have to go as far. Got hummingbird in flight using 30D and 55-250 one time. On the Canon bodies I focused more behind though because if they hunted it was more to mfd.
I completely understand the reason to use a focus limiter but I can't imagine using infinity to 10m. I guess in some situations but I might have gotten closer to a bird than that today. Really bad distance imo if the bird gets closer than you thought you can't get photo and you're fiddling around trying to find a switch, potentially moving and scaring the bird
The videographers might like this lens, though it's not something that this still shooter would buy. My preference would be for some lightweight, fast DO primes like Nikon makes. Sure, I hear that a 400 DO is on the horizon, but it is too little, too late.
armd wrote:
The videographers might like this lens, though it's not something that this still shooter would buy. My preference would be for some lightweight, fast DO primes like Nikon makes. Sure, I hear that a 400 DO is on the horizon, but it is too little, too late.
It's also geared to the majority can't afford the big white primes. In the last 5 years hobbyists have access to distances they could only dream of at one time. Slow but at least available. Canon is brilliant. Sell inexpensive lenses to millions instead of smaller group. Cameras, etc go with that as well.
Zenon Char wrote:
It's also geared to the majority can't afford the big white primes. In the last 5 years hobbyists have access to distances they could only dream of at one time. Slow but at least available. Canon is brilliant. Sell inexpensive lenses to millions instead of smaller group. Cameras, etc go with that as well.
I agree that 200-800mm is aimed at customers who can't afford big white prime lenses, so I think Canon will sell it like water in the desert.
mslino wrote:
I agree that 200-800mm is aimed at customers who can't afford big white prime lenses, so I think Canon will sell it like water in the desert.
Yes. They don’t care if it is f9 and most don’t spend early or late times deep in marches where you need faster lenses. They want 800mm.
AmbientMike wrote:
I thought a focus limiter would be really great, until I got a lens having one. Didn't help me at the time, maybe if it could be turned off really fast and I memorized the position it could be useful. I'm at mfd a lot though so might not help me much
The only time I use one is on my 300 2.8 when shooting hummingbirds or other close targets. If not limited its nearly impossible to get the focus to lock on a tiny bird @ 6 to 12 feet. I find it very useful
Must say I have never used it on distant flying birds in the opposite direction. Might try that today!
mslino wrote:
I agree that 200-800mm is aimed at customers who can't afford big white prime lenses - - -
That point of view is much too narrow (wild guess?). If I really wanted a RF 600 f/4, I would get one. You Only Live Once, right?
But to me, price totally aside, it lacks 200-599 and 601-800mm, it is 1 kg heavier that is 1.5x heavier, it is simply huge and would be a real pain to use as I use my gear = no pods. Ok, if the 600/4 would be at the same 2700€ as the 200-800, I might get it just to try out what all the fuss is about. But if I got the choice of _either_ the 600/4 or the 200-800 it would be like choosing my dream lens or some almost unusable heavy sh!t. No contest. TKO. DRT!
So while that "poor mans lens" do have _some_ merit, the "everyone actually wants a "600 f/2.8" Big White" is plainly ridiculous. And actually the real poor mans jewels are The Mighty f/11 pair, the 600/11 and 800/11!
Z250SA wrote:
But to me, price totally aside, it lacks 200-599 and 601-800mm
+1
It's interesting. 20-30 years ago I would have never considered shooting field sports without an f/2.8 prime (300 or 400) or 'stretching' to f/4 with the 1.4x TC or the 500 or 600 for day games.
When I switched to the 200-400 ~10 years ago and started using it with the TC at indoor/night events, it was at least for me, a tipping point. f/4 was the new f/2.8.
Thanks to the high ISO performance of modern sensors combined with recent NR developments it seems we can go even slower, lighter and smaller. Of course it's not the answer for everything and there will always still be situations where faster lenses will be better. But the breadth of scenarios for which they were at one time a necessity, has considerably narrowed, IMO.
? I scroll out a bit, and once I saw that orange liquid inside a guiness glass, I just closed it down....