Zenon Char wrote:
I'm assuming "at all focal lengths" means fully retractable.
lighthound wrote:
That's great news. Obviously they learned from the 100-500 that that was a mistake. I would put good money on the likelihood of the 100-500II also eliminating that restriction.
To be honest though, I wonder how many people would actually need to use a TC on this lens. I know if I ever pick this lens up that I'd probably never need more reach than 800mm in 98% of the situations I get myself into. Hell, even at 800 you're going to need perfect conditions to reduce atmospheric distortions. Not so much for BIF in the sky but for land critters or perched birds it's a known problem.
As great as this lens seems to be so far, I must say I'm a little disappointed that Canon has still left a huge void in the "Mid tier" range of super tele lenses. I feel they have done a great job filling out the low end RF line up and the "non-mortal" high end RF line up, but not a damn thing in the mid range.
There is nothing between the $2600 (100-500) all the way to $12,000 (400/2.8) range. And no the 100-300 doesn't fall into this wildlife lens category as far as I'm concerned. That's a huge gap that could easily be filled with a couple of f/4.5 or maybe even f/5.6 primes. I'd love to see what Canon could do with a target priced prime lens in the $5-$6K range.
I don't mean to be an F/4 snob but there is a saying in the motorcycle world that definitely also applies here.
"There's no replacement for displacement."
Magic happens with fast glass and there is no way around it. Fake BG blur (bokeh) using software doesn't and never will cut it.
Looks like my beloved 500II is safe for a while longer at least. ...Show more →
How long did it take Canon (and Nikon) to address Sony's 200-600? So there's still hope/possibility that Canon will address what Nikon is currently doing in the mid-speed super-tele primes range. But maybe not until after the 200-500/4 is released that they'll fill those gaps (to give the 200-800 a bit of time as the only 'close' option).
I was hoping to replace my 100-500mm with the 200-800mm but now that I see it's final specs I doubt I will. The announcement is quite disappointing to me. I sure it will be a good lens and popular but Canon's insistence on USZ (Ultra Slow Zoom) twist zooms is maddening. Instead of a bad case of GAS this morning my NSZ (NikonSonyZoom) envy just got worse.....
No need for Canon to come out with the 200-600 since they have the much lighter 100-500, so it goes all the way to 800mm!! nice lens , a couple great lenses out today.
drobertfranz wrote:
I was hoping to replace my 100-500mm with the 200-800mm but now that I see it's final specs I doubt I will. The announcement is quite disappointing to me. I sure it will be a good lens and popular but Canon's insistence on USZ (Ultra Slow Zoom) twist zooms is maddening. Instead of a bad case of GAS this morning my NSZ (NikonSonyZoom) envy just got worse.....
Currently I'm in the same boat. I'm getting great results with my 100-500 and 1.4 on both my R7 and R6II. Worked great on my R5 as well. I don't mind that the 100-500 does not retract as I prefer as compact as possible when I need it to be. I've found a solution to local transportation.
I messed around with crop mode a few years ago. 400 DO II with 2X and in crop mode. It was hard to hand hold. Even with IS you could see any little movement. The 200-800 with a TC will experience that too. BIF will be difficult I think. If I'm reading everything correctly the 200-800 lens AF speed is slower? If so that pretty much does it for me.
Atmospheric distortion with it and a 1.4 does not mean I'm going to do better on distance subjects. I can crop in that missing 100mm for everything else.
Zenon Char wrote:
Currently I'm in the same boat. I'm getting great results with my 100-500 and 1.4 on both my R7 and R6II. Worked great on my R5 as well. I don't mind that the 100-500 does not retract as I prefer as compact as possible when I need it to be. I've found a solution to local transportation.
I messed around with crop mode a few years ago. 400 DO II with 2X and in crop mode. It was hard to hand hold. Even with IS you could see any little movement. The 200-800 with a TC will experience that too. BIF will be difficult I think. If I'm reading everything correctly the 200-800 lens AF speed is slower? If so that pretty much does it for me.
Atmospheric distortion with it and a 1.4 does not mean I'm going to do better on distance subjects. I can crop in that missing 100mm for everything else.
drobertfranz wrote:
Focusing speed, as you state, may be an issue. I don't think it has a focus limiter switch either.. Thats another disappointment.
There is no limiter and that is confirmed. It was an immediate concern to me too. We don't know everything yet. The IS Auto detects panning. Perhaps there is something electronic for limiting. Once released a FW update for cameras? I doubt it but you never know. Imagine how much Canon would save by not putting those two switches on a million lenses? For a FW update you just need to pay coders. I know I'm reaching. At work I was involved in lean manufacturing which originated from Toyota. My old coconut is always doing this.
drobertfranz wrote:
Focusing speed, as you state, may be an issue. I don't think it has a focus limiter switch either.. Thats another disappointment.
You'd think that could be addressed in software as a menu option if Canon wants to silo the lens at a certain price point and target market by omitting 'extra' physical switches and rings on the lens (though the added a couple buttons).
The criticism of the 100 500 didn't make a lot of sense, to begin with. I mean, on a site that has a lot of $6k bodies & $12k lenses, and 70-200/2.8's costing similar are common as dirt, all of the sudden people decide 100-500 is too expensive and lust after a 200-600 that is 50% heavier. Even though they supposedly prefer mirrorless because it's lighter.
And they lust after Nikon even though the 500pf is about the same weight, costs more new, doesn't hold it's value like 100 500
So Canon now added 200mm on the long end, even though it's a little lighter. basically built a 1.4 right into the lens, 800mm in a zoom. canon has some really good lens releases today, and no rumors or anything hardly, just a nice surprise and they're already here available for pre order at least
AmbientMike wrote:
The criticism of the 100 500 didn't make a lot of sense, to begin with. I mean, on a site that has a lot of $6k bodies & $12k lenses, and 70-200/2.8's costing similar are common as dirt, all of the sudden people decide 100-500 is too expensive and lust after a 200-600 that is 50% heavier. Even though they supposedly prefer mirrorless because it's lighter.
And they lust after Nikon even though the 500pf is about the same weight, costs more new, doesn't hold it's value like 100 500
So Canon now added 200mm on the long end, even though it's a little lighter. basically built a 1.4 right into the lens, 800mm in a zoom. canon has some really good lens releases today, and no rumors or anything hardly, just a nice surprise and they're already here available for pre order at least
Not sure what you mean but it's a great day to be a Canon shooter with these new lens releases. 200 800 makes Rf look appealing , the 800/11 handles quite nicely, too
Zenon Char wrote:
There is no limiter and that is confirmed. It was an immediate concern to me too. We don't know everything yet. The IS Auto detects panning. Perhaps there is something electronic for limiting.
I don’t see how it could autodetect near or far, since the problem to start with is that it gets stuck near where it should be far or (more commonly) far when it should be near. I too have found the focus limiter switch essential on my RF 100–500, when it wasn’t so much on my 1D Mk III DSLR + EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 II.
Once released a FW update for cameras? I doubt it but you never know. Imagine how much Canon would save by not putting those two switches on a million lenses?
Of course, a lot, and that’s why this new lens has no dedicated manual focus ring – another thing I find essential on the RF 100–500 that wasn’t so much with my old DSLR+EF lens. It should be big and easy to find and turn, and preferably not click-stopped.
For a FW update you just need to pay coders. I know I'm reaching.
There was an interview a while ago with the development team of one of the lenses; I forget, but it might actually have been the RF 100–500. There were no “coders” as such. The lens firmware was written by the same person who designed the lens electronics.
melcat wrote:
I don’t see how it could autodetect near or far, since the problem to start with is that it gets stuck near where it should be far or (more commonly) far when it should be near. I too have found the focus limiter switch essential on my RF 100–500, when it wasn’t so much on my 1D Mk III DSLR + EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 II.
Of course, a lot, and that’s why this new lens has no dedicated manual focus ring – another thing I find essential on the RF 100–500 that wasn’t so much with my old DSLR+EF lens. It should be big and easy to find and turn, and preferably not click-stopped.
There was an interview a while ago with the development team of one of the lenses; I forget, but it might actually have been the RF 100–500. There were no “coders” as such. The lens firmware was written by the same person who designed the lens electronics....Show more →
Is this not the focus ring? Looks like you can map it for AF or something like aperture.
rscheffler wrote:
You'd think that could be addressed in software as a menu option if Canon wants to silo the lens at a certain price point and target market by omitting 'extra' physical switches and rings on the lens (though the added a couple buttons).
Will be interested to see if that will be the case?
I thought a focus limiter on the 180 Tamron would really be great. Then I got a 400/5.6 Sigma APO macro having a focus limiter, realized it wasn't too great. So it's not a big difference one way or the other for me
AmbientMike wrote:
I thought a focus limiter on the 180 Tamron would really be great. Then I got a 400/5.6 Sigma APO macro having a focus limiter, realized it wasn't too great. So it's not a big difference one way or the other for me
The purpose and operation of a focus-limiter for a macro lens is hardly comparable to a telephoto lens.
Imagemaster wrote:
The purpose and operation of a focus-limiter for a macro lens is hardly comparable to a telephoto lens.
The purpose is kind off the same - to reduce AF hunting and speed focus acquisition. Whether in practice it is useful or not depends on the specific lens/camera combination, how prone the AF is to hunting and the subject. I sometimes use the focus limiter to avoid going to 1:1 when using my macro lens as a short telephoto for moving subjects.
AmbientMike wrote:
I thought a focus limiter on the 180 Tamron would really be great. Then I got a 400/5.6 Sigma APO macro having a focus limiter, realized it wasn't too great. So it's not a big difference one way or the other for me
My EF 100-400 II was more forgiving. Not my EF 100-500. Full hunts more than setting it from 3m to infinity.
