Nikon telephotos while totally missing the point that there are other lenses, like the Canon RF 800mm I mentioned earlier, that offer a substantial improvement in MFD, and therefore subject magnification - which I thought really was pretty self-explanatory.
Unfortunately, I don't have the huge amount of cash I would need to splash out for that unicorn Canon lens (nor any interest in switching systems) but in hindsight, a Nikon 400 f2.8 TC or 600mm f4 TC might have been a better option for what I'm shooting, since engaging the internal TC gives them 0.23x and 0.2x magnification respectively, while still maintaining excellent image quality. Budget-wise, I may have to look at the 180-600 as an alternative; I'm not totally sold on that lens, but I did do a lot of hummingbird photography with my Sony 200-600 G with pretty good results.
It's worth noting that the Canon RF 800mm is literally a Canon RF 400mm/2.8 with a permanently attached 2.0TC and all the disadvantages that come with a design like that (such as no improvement in image quality over a RF 400/2.8 with 2.0TC, but ~$5K USD more expensive and no option to use it as a 400/2.8). That is why it has essentially the same MFD as the RF 400 2.8, because attaching a TC to a lens does not affect MFD. If you put a 2.0TC on the Nikon Z400/2.8 you also get a MFD of ~2.5m, so that would be a more appropriate comparison in this case.
Canon did the exact same thing with the RF 600/4 and their 1200/8 lens as well - that is why the MTFs of the 800mm and 1200mm look so much worse relative to any other exotic lens.
If you look at the Canon EF 800mm/5.6, which is a 'proper' 800mm design, it has a MFD of 6.0m or 19.7ft, which is longer than either Nikon 800mm and quite a bit longer than the 800PF.
Dec 21, 2023 at 01:25 PM
Previous versions of CanadaMark's message #16424224 « Official 800PF image and discussion thread »
