lighthound wrote:
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.
On good days I have the R5 + 100-500 as my main wildlife/BIF, with the R7 + 600/11 for those rather rare occasions when a very long focal length is preferred. That "finding something thru a straw" is a real problem with the R7 + 800/11, it is annoyingly narrow for BIF. But heat shimmer is the main problem at these focal lengths.
The results with the 600 have in general been better than with the 800, the few times I have tested. Because when the target acquisition challenges are added to the shimmer, the results are all too often inferior in so many ways. It is so sad that the ever dominating idea of Bigger is Better forces us to get the 800. I did so despite having the option at the time. Luckily I have found the 600/11 as it so clearly makes the 800/11 the special purpose extreme 1280mm it is on crop. Ok, there were no croppers back then, I got it for the R5 where it works very well, but wont be used as the R7+600/11 is so much handier and 960mm.
_____________
Where does the idea of a Canon RF 200-800 below 10000 €/$ come from? NO way, I say! Closer to 20000 is my guess.
OK, so I missed the canonrumors story... But I check them every day! Not?
Z250SA wrote:
On good days I have the R5 + 100-500 as my main wildlife/BIF, with the R7 + 600/11 for those rather rare occasions when a very long focal length is preferred. That "finding something thru a straw" is a real problem with the R7 + 800/11, it is annoyingly narrow for BIF. But heat shimmer is the main problem at these focal lengths.
The results with the 600 have in general been better than with the 800, the few times I have tested. Because when the target acquisition challenges are added to the shimmer, the results are all too often inferior in so many ways. It is so sad that the ever dominating idea of Bigger is Better forces us to get the 800. I did so despite having the option at the time. Luckily I have found the 600/11 as it so clearly makes the 800/11 the special purpose extreme 1280mm it is on crop. Ok, there were no croppers back then, I got it for the R5 where it works very well, but wont be used as the R7+600/11 is so much handier and 960mm.
_____________
Where does the idea of a Canon RF 200-800 below 10000 €/$ come from? NO way, I say! Closer to 20000 is my guess. ...Show more →
How does the R7 + RF 100-500mm cropped to 600 fov compare with thr R7 + 600/11? I had assumed the AF would be better and the resolution as good because of less problems with diffraction.
cpe1991 wrote:
How does the R7 + RF 100-500mm cropped to 600 fov compare with thr R7 + 600/11? I had assumed the AF would be better and the resolution as good because of less problems with diffraction.
Interesting question. I have not done any deeper analyses, or as we say here: peeped, from that particular point of view. I used the 100-500 on my R7 last spring as a 160-800mm FoV and found the FoV totally amazing, the R7 not so much (mostly read out speed issues topped with AF not quite there at that focal length).
Yes, the 100-500 is better, but not by much. I guess there is some diffraction to be found with the puny pixels of the R7 with both the 100-500 and/but worse with the 600/11. But at any longer distances the shimmer is the main obstacle, add the rubbery feel of the R7 readouts with distorsion of not only the wings, but also of the rest of/parts of the image to a lesser degree but still there in close to too many of the images in a series. I´m at the tipping point with the R7. But thats a Q for an other thread.
On the 200-800, it will be incredible for wildlife on full frame. Handheld I would prefer a cheap version, as it will have splendid optics on present sensors AND perhaps be within monetary reach. However... it will be the huge sister to the 100-300, it WILL. So the Great f/11´s do have their place. Especially the 600/11 on crop!
Z250SA wrote:
Interesting question. I have not done any deeper analyses, or as we say here: peeped, from that particular point of view. I used the 100-500 on my R7 last spring as a 160-800mm FoV and found the FoV totally amazing, the R7 not so much (mostly read out speed issues topped with AF not quite there at that focal length).
Yes, the 100-500 is better, but not by much. I guess there is some diffraction to be found with the puny pixels of the R7 with both the 100-500 and/but worse with the 600/11. But at any longer distances the shimmer is the main obstacle, add the rubbery feel of the R7 readouts with distorsion of not only the wings, but also of the rest of/parts of the image to a lesser degree but still there in close to too many of the images in a series. I´m at the tipping point with the R7. But thats a Q for an other thread.
On the 200-800, it will be incredible for wildlife on full frame. Handheld I would prefer a cheap version, as it will have splendid optics on present sensors AND perhaps be within monetary reach. However... it will be the huge sister to the 100-300, it WILL. So the Great f/11´s do have their place. Especially the 600/11 on crop!...Show more →
Thanks for info about 600/11 vs 100-500. I use the 100-500 and 800/11 on both the R5 and R7. For the R7, I use ES for perched birds etc to avoid shutter shock. For, BIF, dragonflies in flight and for any movement I go to EFCS to avoid rolling shutter and am very happy with the R7 under those conditions.
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 have the 600 f/11. It is crazy small and portable and I prefer it to my 800 f/11. I also own the RF100-500 and the RF100-400.
The 600 is most likely to be on me when I'm not on a photo trip. The 100-500 is most likely to be used when I know I'm going to be out taking photos primarily. The 800 hardly ever gets used. I'd just rather use the 100-500 with or without a TC.
arbitrage wrote:
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.
The Nikon pack of new tele lenses is super nice, actually beyond imagination nice.
Unfortunately, both the 600 PF and 800 PF are out of my price range, and I prefer 200-800 f/9 over 180-600 f/6.3. The Canon lens will be more expensive, on the other hand I will never want to buy any RF teleconverter, which helps a bit.
The 200-800 f/9, if it is real, will be the best 800 mm lens I can ever afford, and the only "big" lens I would ever get. Owners of the Canon 200-800 will not be ashamed, and I think the lens will be a home run for Canon, a much needed entry into this lens class.
I don't understand canon....when I see what nikon is doing in the long end and then look at sony and especially canon, I don't get it. Maybe it doesn't matter, but between the lens offerings and the now excellent z8 and z9, I'm really tempted to sell my long canon gear and move all the way over to nikon. Honestly what holds me back is the crazy price for their 600tc...I really worry (it maybe just me) that the r5ii won't do anything the z8 can already do...Maybe canon doesn't care about the prosumer end of the market these days?
The 200-800mm is for me a very interesting option vs getting the rf 100-400 or even the 100-500 as I have no interest on the 600 and 800 f11s.
But I need a replacement for the ef100-400mk2 since my wife took over it.
If indeed is an f8 or f9 and less than 2.5k it's a taker for me.
There are two very different types of wildlife photographers. Those than can afford lenses that cost the same as new cars (and weigh about the same), and those that don´t.
It is always thrilling with new super optics, but it is usually both super expensive and super heavy. Yes, Nikon apparently does very well right now. I´m pretty sure that C will catch up.
I think Canon is addressing The Big problem with their cheap line long focal length lenses. Question: How many of You started your photog days with a 600 f/4? 500 f/4? 800 f/5.6? OK, so how many started with a 300 f/4 or 400 f/5.6 or 70-300?
I would say that most of us started with something from the cheapest end, more or less. With the attitude of the present day youngsters, the very few that do have an interest in wildlife, IF there are only 10000+ $ options available, and thats only for the lens, you obviously need something at the back of it, they will stand there with their cellphones as does the rest of the world. And the Camera as we know it will be dead for anything but pro use or a handfull of rich, literally a handful.
Nikon dont give a sh.t, but Canon does something rather heroic for the wildlife photog community, admittedly in the usual corporate, profit first way, but still. They are trying to keep wildlife photog alive for an other generation. Cant be too hard to realize? Unless you´ve got those extra $$ or €€ or ££ most don´t have.
Living in a tent (its freezing here now and until mid May) with a huge 15000$ lens and 5000$ body, a lens that totally destroys the background and is so heavy it would stay at home? No! Bring on The Mighty f/11´s that let me do BIF and DIF and enjoy photography AND live in a warm house!!
Wow Nov 2!!! I'm glad I started this thread, sounded like he had something.
Nikon sounds great but I got all excited about the 800pf. Only $6500 & 5.5 lbs!!! But, wait, it's $6500 & 5.5 lbs., you can get decent car for $6500. Pretty heavy and it's odd $6500 is considered cheap these days.
Then you look at the 500pf, it sounds great. But it's about the same weight as 100-500, 2/3 stop faster but doesn't zoom. And you wonder how many people so desirous of the 180-600/200-600 have actually seen this large lens and are interested in carrying this size lens
AmbientMike wrote:
Wow Nov 2!!! I'm glad I started this thread, sounded like he had something.
Nikon sounds great but I got all excited about the 800pf. Only $6500 & 5.5 lbs!!! But, wait, it's $6500 & 5.5 lbs., you can get decent car for $6500. Pretty heavy and it's odd $6500 is considered cheap these days.
Then you look at the 500pf, it sounds great. But it's about the same weight as 100-500, 2/3 stop faster but doesn't zoom. And you wonder how many people so desirous of the 180-600/200-600 have actually seen this large lens and are interested in carrying this size lens...Show more →
Agreed..
One of my photo-buddies has a Nikon Z8 with a Z 180-600 lens and swears by this combo. So I did a weight comparison - his rig verses my rig, which is an R5 and the RF 100-500. His rig is more than 2 pounds heavier. For me and my type of photo-videography, that's a lot. I walk between 60-90 minutes every day with my camera and lens and at least half that time is spent doing a brisk aerobic walk (really huffing it). My camera and lens allow me to do this without any pain or discomfort day after day. Two more pounds on top of this would be a non-starter for me.
AmbientMike wrote:
Wow Nov 2!!! I'm glad I started this thread, sounded like he had something.
Nikon sounds great but I got all excited about the 800pf. Only $6500 & 5.5 lbs!!! But, wait, it's $6500 & 5.5 lbs., you can get decent car for $6500. Pretty heavy and it's odd $6500 is considered cheap these days.
Then you look at the 500pf, it sounds great. But it's about the same weight as 100-500, 2/3 stop faster but doesn't zoom. And you wonder how many people so desirous of the 180-600/200-600 have actually seen this large lens and are interested in carrying this size lens...Show more →
The 500pf is great, and it is a relative bargain now at $2k. It is very sharp, really as sharp as the big primes, but it is really small and light. If you haven't used one you don't realize just how amazing the pf lenses are. The size and weight makes an enormous difference in handling, and for fast action handling is critical.
I agree that this new budget wildlife zoom by canon will sell well, and hopefully it performs decently. The new nikon 180-600 is a great performer, just as all their other long lenses, both expensive and less so.
We don't know the specs yet, but going by the weight of the Nikon 180-600, the R8+200-800 will weigh almost exactly the same as the R5+100-500+1.4TC, and gather more light.
cohenfive wrote:
The 500pf is great, and it is a relative bargain now at $2k. It is very sharp, really as sharp as the big primes, but it is really small and light. If you haven't used one you don't realize just how amazing the pf lenses are. The size and weight makes an enormous difference in handling, and for fast action handling is critical.
I agree that this new budget wildlife zoom by canon will sell well, and hopefully it performs decently. The new nikon 180-600 is a great performer, just as all their other long lenses, both expensive and less so. ...Show more →
Today's price for the Nikon 500 Pf at B&H is $3,296.95.
Like most things on fm, that would be mint used condition usa model. I just sold one for a little less, but while in great shape, it had been used quite a bit. The existence of the 500pf for 2k is driving down the price of other great nikon lenses like the highly regarded 400mm 4.5 and even the 800pf. It also imo makes the price of the new 600pf look a bit too high.
cohenfive wrote:
The 500pf is great, and it is a relative bargain now at $2k. It is very sharp, really as sharp as the big primes, but it is really small and light. If you haven't used one you don't realize just how amazing the pf lenses are. The size and weight makes an enormous difference in handling, and for fast action handling is critical.
I agree that this new budget wildlife zoom by canon will sell well, and hopefully it performs decently. The new nikon 180-600 is a great performer, just as all their other long lenses, both expensive and less so. ...Show more →
The 100 500 is the same as 500pf though, weight-wise, and it is apparently quite sharp. The 180-600 is a big lens.
People clamor for a budget tele then the 600 pf is $4800. The 400/4.5 looks great but 400mm is short on ff imo. So like I mentioned in a previous post, I don't really get the excitement over Nikon teles, they look great at first glance but if you really look closely at them it's not as great as the first time you looked
The 800 sure, but not many have picked up the 600 that I'm aware of.
