Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              7      
8
       end
  

Super telephoto lens rumors?

  
 
Uarctos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #1 · p.8 #1 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


I have the EF 600mm f4 IS III. I am pretty sure there is no noticeable IQ difference between that or a Sony 600mm, or this new Nikon 600mm Z. I'll bet there is no difference if I slap a 1.4x on it, other than convenience, of course. In the end is the image that counts, not how shinny the new toys are.


Apr 15, 2024 at 08:59 AM
ivancook
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #2 · p.8 #2 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


Uarctos wrote:
I have the EF 600mm f4 IS III. I am pretty sure there is no noticeable IQ difference between that or a Sony 600mm, or this new Nikon 600mm Z. I'll bet there is no difference if I slap a 1.4x on it, other than convenience, of course. In the end is the image that counts, not how shinny the new toys are.


It's the usability that gets overlooked in a lot of reviews. For example, the IQ may be about the same between those lenses, but with the Nikon you can use the 1.4x in the rain or snow since it's built in. To me, that's more than convenience. Similarly, my RF100-500 was amazing optically, both with and without the 1.4x, but with the 1.4x you could only use it from 300-500. My Nikon 100-400 only goes to 400, but you can use the 1.4x across the whole range. This may not matter to some, but it's a much better experience from my perspective when I need to back off from 560 or pack it up. Even little details like the lens cap seem more thought through. I have no idea why the RF was designed to only go on in one position, but it frustrated me every time I changed lenses. Now that the Nikon AF has caught up for stills, and maybe even surpassed for video, I jumped ship.

At the end of the day, everyone's needs and values differ so it's great that there's so much choice today.



Apr 15, 2024 at 10:02 AM
drobertfranz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #3 · p.8 #3 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


nmerc_photos wrote:
As everyone has already said, the RF 800 F5.6 is garbage when considering price to performance. You need to stop picking the worst parts of Canon's lineup and trying to use them in your arguments lol.

You can't argue about the RF 800/5.6 being so much lighter, when the IQ is so much lesser. It would be one thing if the two lenses were comparable in IQ - but they're not.

Canon's wildlife lenses are embarrassing currently. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or butts.

Based on your responses, I'm guessing you've never used many of the lenses and bodies that you're trying to
...Show more

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm if it is, disregard

Not sure how you can call the Canon RF800mm F5.6 garbage all reports and talking to a few that shoot with it that is not the case at all. The optics are outstanding. I don't know where you came up with the RF800 optics being so much worse than the PF800. I'm fairly certain that it would equal or exceed the PF800mmF6.3. Yes it's heavier but it gathers more light and would produce better BG renditions and bokeh than a PF lens. So with the RF800 + R3 we're at 9.1lbs and the PF800 +Z9 we're at 8.2 lbs so for sure a difference but not a huge one. I recently handled the PF800 + Z9 and was impressed with the weight and handling but I was also amazed when I tried the RF800 on my R5. It handled great especially compared to my old EF800mmF5.6 on any body..

The MF differences between the PF800 and the RF800mm is huge. 8.53' and .34X magnification for the RF vs 16.4' and .16x magnification for the PF. For some, especially birders, this is huge.. I remember when everyone used the trash the EF800mm F5.6 for its MFD but now the PF MDF is nothing special, but no one seems to mention it I don't think there has ever been a super telephoto with a .34x mag rate before. Of course the outrageous pricing of the RF800 is a big drawback but Nikon is no better. Look at the price of the 600mm F4 TC .

Man I love what Nikon has done with their mid=range teles and would love for Canon to compete in that market. Who knows but look at Sony. There telephoto lineup is pretty weak compared to Canon or Nikon. I've been quite critical of the direction Canon has taken in the RF world especially with their telephotos but your take on Canon is pretty harsh.



Apr 15, 2024 at 10:25 AM
nmerc_photos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #4 · p.8 #4 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


drobertfranz wrote:
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm if it is, disregard

Not sure how you can call the Canon RF800mm F5.6 garbage all reports and talking to a few that shoot with it that is not the case at all. The optics are outstanding. I don't know where you came up with the RF800 optics being so much worse than the PF800. I'm fairly certain that it would equal or exceed the PF800mmF6.3. Yes it's heavier but it gathers more light and would produce better BG renditions and bokeh than a PF lens. So with the RF800 + R3 we're at
...Show more

It's not sarcasm. I've owned the lens (probably less than, what 1000 people out there have?) and while yes - the "reviewers" had high praise for innovation and whatever, every actual individual that I knew who owned it sold it as fast as they could. When I owned mine, I had 7 of my friends and family that had one as well, and none of them still have it today. The RF 800/1200 are by far the worst price to performance tele photo lenses on the market.

It's essentially a 400 f2.8 with an internal 2x and then a price increase of $5,000 for it. The image quality is what you would expect of a 400 + 2x. It's not up to par with the EF 800 5.6, Nikon 800 5.6, or even the Nikon PF 800 F6.3.

It just isn't a "true" 800mm by any standards. If you only need 800mm - 1600mm and have money burning a hole in your pocket - sure, go for it. But just about any normal user would be much better off with a 400 2.8 or 600 4 and TC's. Cheaper, far more flexibility, etc.

People have speculated that the 800/1200 were designed with government or "spy" type work in mind. I think that is very likely. When you need the most range possible and IQ is a secondary concern - they make perfect sense. I know a few friends who took up employment using those lenses to monitor people who were "cheating" the government in terms of assistance for work related disability.

Yes MFD is one of only a few points where the RF lenses can beat the 800PF. I have already stated that I think the reason everyone said the EF 800 5.6 was trash with that MFD is because it was a $12K (or whatever) lens. The 800PF is $6.5K. When you cut the price in half the value proposition changes greatly - and people are more than willing to give up the MFD for the savings.

I'm not trying to be harsh with Canon. I still believe they are a great company, and they've done great things historically. But right now it is clear that they are asleep at the wheel when it comes to wildlife offerings.

They have taken what they believe to be the most profitable approach which is sticking to the budget/zoom crowd. And it probably is. It's great for them, but it's not great for us as consumers.

Until I tried Nikon, I was super happy with my Canon setup. Heck, I even throw around the idea of going back just because of how much cheaper and how much simpler the offerings are. 2x R5, RF 100-500, RF 600 F4, TC's. boom you have a superb kit all for under $15,000 USD. That's cheaper than my single lens (400TC) cost. Incredible value.

I'm only still commenting and beating the dead horse because although we have lots of great comments of people talking about things they have experience with - AmbientMike is coming in with all sorts of falsehoods about equipment he's never even seen in real life - let alone owned.


Edited on Apr 15, 2024 at 10:56 AM · View previous versions



Apr 15, 2024 at 10:44 AM
Flowernut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #5 · p.8 #5 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


I wish the 100-300 f2.8 had drop in filters. I hope this is not a trend with RF super telephotos. They also need a 1.4 and 2x that will work with their zooms like the 100-500 without reduciing the zoom range.


Apr 15, 2024 at 10:50 AM
thedutt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #6 · p.8 #6 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


Flowernut wrote:
I wish the 100-300 f2.8 had drop in filters. I hope this is not a trend with RF super telephotos. They also need a 1.4 and 2x that will work with their zooms like the 100-500 without reduciing the zoom range.


TBH, I rarely use the drop in filter. I did get a polarizer for my 400, but used it only a couple of times. It would have been nice ot have a drop in option on the 100-300 though. Lets see what the 200-500 brings and perhaps the 1.4x-2x will become real.




Apr 15, 2024 at 11:09 AM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

drobertfranz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #7 · p.8 #7 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


nmerc_photos wrote:
drobertfranz wrote:
Believe me I sometimes consider moving to Nikon.. Just not convinced I want to go through the hassle and learning a new system. I definitely wouldn't want to take a financial hit to do it.

I have seen no actual test tests that show the PF800 superior optically to the RF800mm F5.6. I seriously doubt it and those I know that own it are very complimentary of it's performance. I use the RF600mm F4 and find it to be an outstanding lens with great performance with the RF1.4. Of course the Nikon TC600mm is excellent, But at a steep
...Show more



Apr 15, 2024 at 11:33 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #8 · p.8 #8 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


nmerc_photos wrote:
As everyone has already said, the RF 800 F5.6 is garbage when considering price to performance. You need to stop picking the worst parts of Canon's lineup and trying to use them in your arguments lol.

You can't argue about the RF 800/5.6 being so much lighter, when the IQ is so much lesser. It would be one thing if the two lenses were comparable in IQ - but they're not.

Canon's wildlife offerings are embarrassing currently. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or butts.

Based on your responses, I'm guessing you've never used many of the lenses and bodies that you're trying to
...Show more

That is pretty obviously not true. Even if you take this fairly ridiculous position, Canon pretty obviously led the industry, coming out with the 1st <7lb 600/4 in 2018. Sony didn't even have any fast super teles until the 400/2.8 in 2018, Canon came out with the 400/2.8 on FD in the 80's!!!

You have funny ideas on older lenses, that, if followed, you could apparently throw out a lot of the Leica gear people adapt, since a lot if that is pre-
1990, over 30 years old. Keh currently has over $1600 on an FD 400/2.8, last I checked EF 400/2.8's potentially over $3k, even the non-IS! So yes, people use older lenses, even if you don't
, if you know of people giving older 300/2.8's I've been looking at them semi recently

I didn't really think the 500pf particularly genius, other than the realization 500mm is still pretty long, and 500mm is lighter than 600/5.6. If you want an 800pf that isn't as sharp as the 10lb 800/5.6 you oddly tried to paint as an old fuddy duddy lens, even though it's sharper, go buy one, I guess. 2013 isn't old



Apr 15, 2024 at 11:45 AM
nmerc_photos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #9 · p.8 #9 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


drobertfranz wrote:
Believe me I sometimes consider moving to Nikon.. Just not convinced I want to go through the hassle and learning a new system. I definitely wouldn't want to take a financial hit to do it.

I have seen no actual test tests that show the PF800 superior optically to the RF800mm F5.6. I seriously doubt it and those I know that own it are very complimentary of it's performance. I use the RF600mm F4 and find it to be an outstanding lens with great performance with the RF1.4. Of course the Nikon TC600mm is excellent, But at a steep price,
...Show more

FWIW the switch was definitely very daunting. I still don't find Nikon's AF to be as reliable as Canon's. I think Canon wins overall in terms of price to performance in many areas (R5 is killer for $2K, same as the 100-500 for $2K). But I think anyone claiming that Canon is competing in the mid to long end is kidding themselves.

I haven't seen any tests directly comparing the RF800 to 800PF (other than my own), but you can find tests comparing RF800 to RF600 and then RF600 to 800PF. And things like that. Every test shows the same thing - the RF800 is not near the IQ of any of the other true 800mm lenses.

Is it doable? Sure. But again - value proposition is not there.

The MFD comparison is nearly moot because although the RF600 MFD is 3.72" shorter - the RF600 itself is 1.38" longer, without TC.

I think we are on the same page about just about everything, except for the RF800. If you ever get the chance to use that lens, I'm sure you'll see what I'm talking about.

AmbientMike wrote:
That is pretty obviously not true. Even if you take this fairly ridiculous position, Canon pretty obviously led the industry, coming out with the 1st <7lb 600/4 in 2018. Sony didn't even have any fast super teles until the 400/2.8 in 2018, Canon came out with the 400/2.8 on FD in the 80's!!!

You have funny ideas on older lenses, that, if followed, you could apparently throw out a lot of the Leica gear people adapt, since a lot if that is pre-
1990, over 30 years old. Keh currently has over $1600 on an FD 400/2.8, last I checked EF 400/2.8's
...Show more

Again, if you're going to try and argue - stick to the points. I am talking about whether Canon is competitive NOW. Not 5 years ago in 2018 when Sony was irrelevant. Not 30 years ago when Canon had their 12lb primes. NOW.

If given the choice between a 12lb 400 f2.8 or a modern 7lb 400 f2.8 for the same price of $3000, are you picking the old lens?

Obviously people use old lenses, but it's not because they have a choice. It's because they can't afford (or justify, if you want a nicer way of saying it) the new gear. For those who can afford the new gear - Nikon is the best in terms of lenses, bar none.

Also, 2013 is insanely old in terms of tech progression. The types of things we have today (AF, IBIS, VR) were fictions of imagination nearly 11 years ago.

The fact that you can't point to anything good about modern Canon, and have to keep harping on about decades old equipment - is telling.

Edited on Apr 15, 2024 at 12:54 PM · View previous versions



Apr 15, 2024 at 12:48 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #10 · p.8 #10 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


Complaint thread 5 years ago: all Canon has is expensive lenses!

Complaint thread today: I don't want any of these cheap lenses!

Even though the Rf 100-400 probably sharper than the EF 100-400 v1 that used to be popular here



Apr 15, 2024 at 12:51 PM
drobertfranz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #11 · p.8 #11 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


nmerc_photos wrote:
FWIW the switch was definitely very daunting. I still don't find Nikon's AF to be as reliable as Canon's. I think Canon wins overall in terms of price to performance in many areas (R5 is killer for $2K, same as the 100-500 for $2K). But I think anyone claiming that Canon is competing in the mid to long end is kidding themselves.

I haven't seen any tests directly comparing the RF800 to 800PF (other than my own), but you can find tests comparing RF800 to RF600 and then RF600 to 800PF. And things like that. Every test shows the same thing
...Show more



Apr 15, 2024 at 03:26 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #12 · p.8 #12 · Super telephoto lens rumors?


nmerc_photos wrote:
FWIW the switch was definitely very daunting. I still don't find Nikon's AF to be as reliable as Canon's. I think Canon wins overall in terms of price to performance in many areas (R5 is killer for $2K, same as the 100-500 for $2K). But I think anyone claiming that Canon is competing in the mid to long end is kidding themselves.

I haven't seen any tests directly comparing the RF800 to 800PF (other than my own), but you can find tests comparing RF800 to RF600 and then RF600 to 800PF. And things like that. Every test shows the same thing
...Show more

VR has been around for years, af longer, and if you don't like Canon and seriously think they aren't innovating, you must hate Sony in super teles. They have nothing. I've pointed to a lot of good Canon lenses

Mostly your post makes no sense




Apr 15, 2024 at 09:56 PM
1       2       3              7      
8
       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              7      
8
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.