I'm starting to warm up to this lens and am really looking forward to hearing real world reports on it's performance. If this thing proves to be a solid lens with good specs I just might swap out my 100-500 for it in the next year or so. I'd rarely (if ever) need to mess around using my 1.4TC, which would be a welcomed huge plus.
I couldn't care less about weather sealing as I always put a rain jacket on my lenses, even my 500 II, because I never want to take a chance with something so costly. Plus it's not like I go out shooting in the rain more than a dozen times a year anyhow. As long as the size, weight, IQ, speed and decent MFD is there, this lens has my interest.
So who's has already pre-ordered or will be pre-ordering this puppy tonight?
arbitrage wrote:
I'd count the 100-400GM also and say 4.
Unless one is into really slow glass then Canon really doesn't have anything different than Sony (2xTCs Frankensteined into old lenses not withstanding).
They have there 100-500 which is similar to a 100-400 and then they have the RF400/2.8 and RF600/4....same as Sony.
Both Sony and Canon need to step up the mid-high end lens game because Nikon is eating them alive. There are no Canon lenses that would tempt me over from Sony right now (I'd pretty much be swapping over to identical kit). There are a lot of Nikon lenses that would.
Weren't you one of the ones saying that EF lenses are so much better on Sony using the adapter?
Canon has a better, more native adapter, you can count 200/2, 300/2.8, 500/4, 800/5.6, 300/4, 400/5.6, etc, that Sony doesn't have.
Nice Frankenstein reference, happy Halloween, but if you actually look at the optical diagram they didn't just put the 2x III on there
Aj aj, experiensing some GAS here... The 100-500 has a 160-800mm field of view on a cropper, so I know it is almost the ultimate FL range for me. I could throw in the R7 and the 800/11 in a deal for the 200-800. To get that FL range on the R5 would be so much better than the same on the R7 and even more pixels per duck a that. And all the R5 goodness! Yes, definitely GASsing up here...
arbitrage wrote:
Push-pull extending?? That is what that large white area looks like to me. Black is MF ring? I don't know...that would be weird but hey....it's Canon...they've lost the plot ever since they started building RF lenses.
Oh man if it was a push pull zoom I'd be very happy.. Push pull zooms are without question the fastest and most intuitive zoom design. I was hoping for an internal zoom but expecting a extending twist zoom with is the worst design IMO. If it comes out as a push pull I'm probably in for a bad case of GAS....
AmbientMike wrote:
Nice Frankenstein reference, happy Halloween, but if you actually look at the optical diagram they didn't just put the 2x III on there
Technically you are correct, in that they did not literally weld the retail RF 2.0TC onto the lens, however it is essentially the same 2X teleconverter magnification group with the only meaningful difference being that the first element in the TC group has been swapped out for a ULD element designed to reduce the CA that usually increases from, you guessed it, the addition of a teleconverter
Looking at the RF 400/2.8 and RF 800/5.6, for example, the optical group in front of the 2.0X magnification group is identical. You'll also notice that the RF 400/2.8 optical design is 17 elements in 13 groups, and the Canon RF 2.0TC has 9 elements in 5 groups. The RF 800/5.6 has 26 elements in 18 groups, which is exactly the same as adding the 2.0TC onto the 400/2.8. You can also just look at the physical shape of the lens itself - it's plainly obvious what Canon has done here. The story is the same for the RF 600/4 and 1200/8 with regards to the element groupings.
For more evidence we can also look at Canon's own MTF charts, and the 400/2.8 with 2.0TC and bare 800/5.6 as well as the 600/4 with 2.0TC and bare 1200/8 lenses have charts that appear virtually identical. The 800mm and 1200mm lenses are ever so slightly better in the corners, but probably not to a degree that is noticeable to the end user. Further, we can see that the bare 400mm and bare 600mm have significantly better MTFs than the bare 800mm and 1200mm, which is obviously due to the image quality degradation from the TC group - this is not something you see from other dedicated 800mm lenses, and there are no other modern 1200mm lenses to compare the other one to, but it's not hard to see what's going on here.
So, even if someone could somehow be convinced that the 800mm and 1200mm weren't just the 400mm and 600mm lenses with 2.0TC groups added, you aren't gaining any meaningful performance for the hefty $5,000 USD (800mm) $7,000 USD (1200mm) premiums (less the price of the TC) compared to just buying the shorter version of the same lens along with a 2.0TC and getting some additional flexibility while you're at it. The only advantages of the 800mm and 1200mm would be arguably better weather sealing in the harshest of conditions (compared to adding a TC to the shorter versions), and the ability to stack yet another TC on them, neither of which I imagine are worth the price premium to most users, especially with how hard of a hit you take to image quality when stacking TCs.
Anyway, call it what you want, but for all intents and purposes, Canon is using a 2.0TC magnification group on the 400mm and 600mm lenses to get to 800mm and 1200mm rather than a ground-up lens design.
I saw the same price. It's starting to sound better and better. The weight is fine and pretty much expected. I just want to hear an MFD and I'm golden.
Although the number of elements matches, the shapes of the elements in the rear group of the RF 800/5.6 mm are completely different from those of the RF 2X converter. Also the MTFs between RF 400/2.8 + RF 2X vs. RF 800/5.6 do not match, either.
Did you check any of the information that you just wrote with the actual diagrams and graphs?
The rear group is identical between the 800 and 1200 and the rest of the designs are identical to the 400 and 600 respectively. Just because it doesn’t match an existing design doesn’t mean it’s not effectively a 2x. There’s a reason why the reproduction ratio (multiplied by 2), close focus, etc. are identical between the 400 and 800 and the 600 and 1200.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Although the number of elements matches, the shapes of the elements in the rear group of the RF 800/5.6 mm are completely different from those of the RF 2X converter. Also the MTFs between RF 400/2.8 + RF 2X vs. RF 800/5.6 do not match, either.
Did you check any of the information that you just wrote with the actual diagrams and graphs?
Official. And, I know aesthetics don't really matter at all, but that might be the ugliest lens I've ever seen. The white barrel with completely plain end and no red ring make it look like one of those cheap $100 'supertelephotos' that were around in spades 10 years ago.
PetaPixel: A natural comparison point for the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 is the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens. One obvious difference between the two zooms is that the 100-500mm lens is an L series lens.
The RF 200-800mm also sports a white coating, albeit not the same infrared-reflective paint surface as recent L-series lenses. Further, the RF 200-800mm lens features a weather-resistant design.
The two zooms are also different sizes, as is to be expected. The RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 lens weighs about 3.3 pounds (1,525g). It is also noticeably shorter than the new RF 200-800mm lens. The RF 200-800mm has a max diameter of four inches (102.3mm) and is 12.4 inches (314.1mm) long at 200mm. On the other hand, the 100-500mm is 3.69 inches (93.8mm) in diameter and 8.17 inches (207.6mm) long at 100mm. Both lenses extend when zooming....Show more →
From the DPR article: "Canon claims that this lens will deliver better image quality with teleconverters than its RF 100-500mm lens."
Also from DPR: "Although the lens has a maximum aperture of 800mm of F9, you'll need to zoom in all the way (or close to it) before the lens stops down that far. From 300-400mm, the lens stops down to F7.1, and from 500-600mm, it stops down to F8."
So, it's 1/3 stop slower than the 100-500 at the long end and 2/3 stop slower than the Nikon and Sony options at 600mm. Is this a significant point of difference, pro or con? I guess it's the compromise of reaching 800mm and keeping a 95mm filter size.
CanadaMark wrote: Technically you are correct, in that they did not literally weld the retail RF 2.0TC onto the lens, however it is essentially the same 2X teleconverter magnification group with the only meaningful difference being that the first element in the TC group has been swapped out for a ULD element designed to reduce the CA that usually increases from, you guessed it, the addition of a teleconverter
Looking at the RF 400/2.8 and RF 800/5.6, for example, the optical group in front of the 2.0X magnification group is identical. You'll also notice that the RF 400/2.8 optical design is 17 elements in 13 groups, and the Canon RF 2.0TC has 9 elements in 5 groups. The RF 800/5.6 has 26 elements in 18 groups, which is exactly the same as adding the 2.0TC onto the 400/2.8. You can also just look at the physical shape of the lens itself - it's plainly obvious what Canon has done here. The story is the same for the RF 600/4 and 1200/8 with regards to the element groupings.
For more evidence we can also look at Canon's own MTF charts, and the 400/2.8 with 2.0TC and bare 800/5.6 as well as the 600/4 with 2.0TC and bare 1200/8 lenses have charts that appear virtually identical. The 800mm and 1200mm lenses are ever so slightly better in the corners, but probably not to a degree that is noticeable to the end user. Further, we can see that the bare 400mm and bare 600mm have significantly better MTFs than the bare 800mm and 1200mm, which is obviously due to the image quality degradation from the TC group - this is not something you see from other dedicated 800mm lenses, and there are no other modern 1200mm lenses to compare the other one to, but it's not hard to see what's going on here.
So, even if someone could somehow be convinced that the 800mm and 1200mm weren't just the 400mm and 600mm lenses with 2.0TC groups added, you aren't gaining any meaningful performance for the hefty $5,000 USD (800mm) $7,000 USD (1200mm) premiums (less the price of the TC) compared to just buying the shorter version of the same lens along with a 2.0TC and getting some additional flexibility while you're at it. The only advantages of the 800mm and 1200mm would be arguably better weather sealing in the harshest of conditions (compared to adding a TC to the shorter versions), and the ability to stack yet another TC on them, neither of which I imagine are worth the price premium to most users, especially with how hard of a hit you take to image quality when stacking TCs.
Anyway, call it what you want, but for all intents and purposes, Canon is using a 2.0TC magnification group on the 400mm and 600mm lenses to get to 800mm and 1200mm rather than a ground-up lens design....Show more →
If you are saying it has a ULD element you can't buy in a 2x: thanks for making my point
It is pretty clearly not the same as 400/2.8 + 2x, since it has better MTF.
But if you don't like it you can also get the 800/5.6 EF version. Sony just doesn't have the breadth of options. As you said there aren't any other 1200mm out there, and this lens beats 600 + 2×
I preordered at B&H. I figure by the time it’s available, more thorough reviews will be available from those with production samples. I really enjoyed the Sony 200-600 while I was still using the A9, so hopefully this lens will fill that niche for me when I can’t bring along my EF 600 f4 MKII.
Unless I'm missing something I think Gordon made a bit of a mistake with the 100-500. Minute 3:30. No panning IS to choose from? IS mode 2 is for panning and mine has it.
