I own the 100-500. It is a really nice lens. A little slow, at least relative to the 500pf, but I use it a lot for wildlife that isn't far enough away for my 600f4. I would not say it is quite as sharp as the 500pf, but I use the canon without hesitation, and the ability to zoom comes in handy a lot when I use it. Now they are about the same price (500pf vs rf 100-500). Zoom vs prime, prime is faster, and maybe a little bit sharper. Seems like a fair trade all around.
I agree that the 600pf is overpriced. I had the chance to get one of the first ones and passed. It will be great, but relative to the 400 4.5, the 500pf and even the 180-600 it seems to me that it should have been priced around $4k...especially as the 800pf is now below 6k (fm price). I also passed on the 180-600....I need a shorter focal length and you give up a bit of sharpness and gain weight to get that one...but it will sell well and is a good value, just as the sony is a good value. I am tempted to get a 400 4.5. That lens is supposed to be razor sharp, fast and fast to focus. A great lens, and now it is way down in price as well (on fm anyway). But I'd have to sell my rf 24-70 to fund it.....
cohenfive wrote:
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?
Canon is a large company with tremendous market share and leadership which is focused in a variety of areas. First, ILC sales have declined across the globe with the exception of China. Canon has chosen to focus on the entry level as well as pro market along with an emphasis on video. Nikon saw an opportunity to exploit the gaps and has produced some amazing, high performing mid-priced lenses. There are many users who are happy with the Canon f/11 lenses and they are likely to be ecstatic with a telescoping 200-800 f/9. The pros will always gravitate towards the high end and expensive f/4 primes and high performance (and priced) zooms.
The R5 is still an amazing camera and in some areas it exceeded the Z8 whereas in other domains it fell short. The R5ii will likely feature a faster read sensor, some af improvements, and ES FPS options. Other than that I wouldn’t expect a whole lot more from the R5ii.
Nikon’s middle range Z primes have no current equals (400 f/4.5, 600 f/6.3, and 800 f/6.3). If these FL’s, dimensions, prices, and performance speak to you then it might make sense for you to consider looking at them. A 200-800 bayonetting zoom will not provide comparable performance, and it is highly unlikely that Canon will release lenses which will compete directly with the Nikon primes mentioned anytime soon.
wish they would make something like the 150-600 f5.6L from the 1980's. With new materials and designs it would be much lighter and a killer focal length. If you want to include the longer focal lengths you can add a 1.4x and have it zoom out to 840 at f8. The design department needs a photographer to help them. I still can't believe the 70-200 will not accept multipliers and the 100-500 starts accepting at 300mm.
Looks like it hits f/7.1 around 400mm or so. Hopefully it holds off on hitting f/9 until right up near 800mm (or whatever the actual max final length is).
F9 is actually a good thing for many folks who do wildlife videos.
For those of us who don't want to mess around with ND filters, which is probably most of us, we're often doing video recording at f9 or higher in order to keep the light levels down. So this new lens sounds great for videophiles.
Rudy Pohl wrote:
F9 is actually a good thing for many folks who do wildlife videos.
For those of us who don't want to mess around with ND filters, which is probably most of us, we're often doing video recording at f9 or higher in order to keep the light levels down. So this new lens sounds great for videophiles.
Rudy
Agree and it is another indication that Canon is emphasizing video work. For still photographers working in marginal light or who are shooting early/late, it’s not a good choice. And before everyone jumps on the just crank the iso bandwagon, I frequently shot at ISO’s of 12800 f/5.6, scraping out marginal Tv’s of 1/1200 for BIF.
Rudy Pohl wrote:
F9 is actually a good thing for many folks who do wildlife videos.
For those of us who don't want to mess around with ND filters, which is probably most of us, we're often doing video recording at f9 or higher in order to keep the light levels down. So this new lens sounds great for videophiles.
Curious - can't you stop down a faster lens to f9? I know I can do that with my 2.8 lenses, and the only time I have to mess with ND filters is for solar eclipses.
stanj wrote:
Curious - can't you stop down a faster lens to f9? I know I can do that with my 2.8 lenses, and the only time I have to mess with ND filters is for solar eclipses.
Yes, but that's assuming you have a faster lens to begin with. For many of us financially challenged folks owning a faster 500, 600 or 800 is not a possibility. Besides, even if some of us older guys could afford a fast super telephoto we would have a lot of trouble carrying it around.
My point in my original post was that while an f9 max aperture at 800mm is a negative for many stills shooters that's not the case for video shooters. I use a R5 and an RF100-500 for my wildlife videos and I spend a lot of time at f9 or above. With videos your shutter speed is predetermined by your frame rate and often we're shooting with a 1/60th sec shutter speed and out ISO as low as it can go. The only way to get the exposure right is to stop down the aperture (or use ND filters).
Ah. I misunderstood. I thought you're saying the slowness of f9 is a benefit for video, which confused the hell out of me. Totally understand the financial (and size/weight!) drawbacks of faster glass.
I don't have a clue about shooting video, but I would have thought if one was shooting mainly video and wanted the best results they would shoot with a Canon pro camcorder.
Some thoughts regarding a 150-600 mm f/6 lens. Such a les would be a very good and useful lens, and also with teleconverters. The request for such a lens and the disappointment that it is not what will come at this time, is valid.
However, any assumption that such a lens would satisfy both user groups, those preferring 150-600 f/5.6 and those preferring a 200-800 f/9, is up to debate. As a long time user and fan of EF teleconveters, I more and more dislike using them, and especially after the good experience with th RF 100-400 f/8 on a crop camera. The pros and cons of using teleconverters are well known, but the availability of long and slow lenses has proven at least to me, that they are more effective in the total balance of things.
More so, a 150-600 f/5.6 lens is actually 20% 'larger' than a 200-800 mm lf/9 lens. The combination of 1/3 stop at nearly equivalent focal lengths combined with the fact that 840mm actually is a tad longer the 800, amounts to half a stop of light. The lens would be at least a pound heavier, and at least a grand more expensive. This would push it out of the comfort zone at least for me, and I suspect for many.
Imagemaster wrote:
I don't have a clue about shooting video, but I would have thought if one was shooting mainly video and wanted the best results they would shoot with a Canon pro camcorder.
That would seem to be true on first consideration and would definitively be the case for professional filmmakers and documentarians, however there are other factors that come into the decision.
For one thing, many of us amateur video shooters also have a major interest in shooting stills, but lugging around two cameras is out of the question. That's why we have hybrid cameras like the R5...., actually, pretty well all mirrorless cameras today are hybrids. Another factor, and for many of us it's the main factor, we simply can't afford the best lenses that yield the best results, and so we have to go through a process of determining how to get the best bang for our buck. The RF200-800 seems to address the "reach vs cost" equation nicely for those with limited finances. We'll soon see if it actually does.
Rudy Pohl wrote:
That would seem to be true on first consideration and would definitively be the case for professional filmmakers and documentarians, however there are other factors that come into the decision.
For one thing, many of us amateur video shooters also have a major interest in shooting stills, but lugging around two cameras is out of the question. That's why we have hybrid cameras like the R5...., actually, pretty well all mirrorless cameras today are hybrids. Another factor, and for many of us it's the main factor, we simply can't afford the best lenses that yield the best results, and so we have to go through a process of determining how to get the best bang for our buck. The RF200-800 seems to address the "reach vs cost" equation nicely for those with limited finances. We'll soon see if it actually does. ...Show more →
No professional filmmakers or documentarians will use that camcorder.... a 1 inch sensor with a slow super zoom..... maybe some news agency.
They use Alexa, RED, Sony FX, Canon C series and a lot of time especially for doc they use DSLR lenses.... so professionals use tools that are much more similar to an R5/R7 than that camcorders.
If you take wildlife pro videography, a R5 with the new rumored 200-800 will produce an image that will be much more closer to the top of the line 100'000$ equipment (RED V-Raptor + Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9) than that old style camcorder.
action99 wrote:
No professional filmmakers or documentarians will use that camcorder.... a 1 inch sensor with a slow super zoom..... maybe some news agency.
They use Alexa, RED, Sony FX, Canon C series and a lot of time especially for doc they use DSLR lenses.... so professionals use tools that are much more similar to an R5/R7 than that camcorders.
If you take wildlife pro videography, a R5 with the new rumored 200-800 will produce an image that will be much more closer to the top of the line 100'000$ equipment (RED V-Raptor + Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9) than that old style camcorder.
Hi action99,
Thanks for your input, I stand corrected. I'm a little outdated in my knowledge. Our small web/dev and digital design company (retired 8 years now) used to do ad and product videos for clients' websites years ago and we mainly used a Canon pro camcorder for the jobs. At that time, as a recall, there were still wildlife and nature videographers using pro camcorders.
The point I wanted to underscore was that many of us enthusiast wildlife video shooters are not able to acquire the gear that yields "the best results", but have to find ways to make due with more affordable equipment like the R5 and the RF100-500 (which I use and love), and the upcoming RF200-800.
By the way, I still remember your amazing Mountain Biking and Africa video.... fabulous!
I buy used gear and am shooting with gear over 10 years old. Or I buy in a country where the currency has taken a hit. You can buy some outstanding gear of professional quality used. Here, flea bay, it is to be had.
Flowernut wrote:
wish they would make something like the 150-600 f5.6L from the 1980's. With new materials and designs it would be much lighter and a killer focal length. If you want to include the longer focal lengths you can add a 1.4x and have it zoom out to 840 at f8. The design department needs a photographer to help them. I still can't believe the 70-200 will not accept multipliers and the 100-500 starts accepting at 300mm.
alundeb wrote:
Some thoughts regarding a 150-600 mm f/6 lens. Such a lens would be a very good and useful lens, and also with teleconverters. The request for such a lens and the disappointment that it is not what will come at this time, is valid.
However, any assumption that such a lens would satisfy both user groups, those preferring 150-600 f/5.6 and those preferring a 200-800 f/9, is up to debate. As a long time user and fan of EF teleconveters, I more and more dislike using them, and especially after the good experience with th RF 100-400 f/8 on a crop camera. The pros and cons of using teleconverters are well known, but the availability of long and slow lenses has proven at least to me, that they are more effective in the total balance of things.
More so, a 150-600 f/5.6 lens is actually 20% 'larger' than a 200-800 mm lf/9 lens. The combination of 1/3 stop at nearly equivalent focal lengths combined with the fact that 840mm actually is a tad longer the 800, amounts to half a stop of light. The lens would be at least a pound heavier, and at least a grand more expensive. This would push it out of the comfort zone at least for me, and I suspect for many. ...Show more →
This will all be relative to our needs/expectations. From my point of view, a 150-600/5.6 would be possibly even more of a compromise lens than the rumored 200-800 for some of the reasons mentioned by alundeb. With the 200-800, you pretty much know you'll be using it in better light conditions and if its around $2k, could be an acceptable compromise for this price/performance.
A 150-600/5.6 would probably be an L and considerably more expensive than the slightly slower Nikon and Sony equivalents, and the RF 100-500. For this amount of money, it's a bit of a borderline proposition for sports, though I admit I am using my 200-400/4 with the TC at indoor/night events, at least I can fall back to 400/4 if it's necessary. It won't be as compact as the 100-500 and not really that much of a gain over it, in respect to light gathering.
I would much prefer the much less 'compromised', but certainly very expensive, larger and heavier rumored 200-500/4. This pushes the envelope of indoor/night venues farther than a max aperture f/5.6 option, creates real product separation from the 100-500 and leaves more relevance for the wildlife/birding-centric 200-800. For those who find the 200-800 too slow, a 200-500/4 with 1.4x TC would buy an additional 1.3 stops but come a bit short at 700mm. IMO a 200-500/4 would be a true super-tele prime alternative/replacement while a 150-600/5.6 would find itself competing with the mid-tier offerings from Nikon and Sony instead, just like the 100-500.
As far as video, it just depends. I was surprised talking to a pro video guy recently, he said he still does mostly 1080. YouTube is on the phone, and he said TV is interested in 1080.
But I doubt Ken Burns or many at Sundance use a camcorder. the guy I talked to insisted on the mk II, IIRC maybe C100 II, of course that has a good sized sensor. He used a 360° camera quite a lot
My personal experience, I got a GH1 years ago and it seemed like the older, much more expensive camcorder at the video workshop probably easier to get good video out of, given features like smooth zooming given you could just hit a button to zoom. But you could probably get attachments and get better video out of the larger sensor GH1, external sound for one generally better and a more common way to do things
