Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #16514858 « Super telephoto lens rumors? »

  

nmerc_photos
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Super telephoto lens rumors?


AmbientMike wrote:


nmerc_photos wrote:
ivancook wrote:
I'm having major envy of Nikon's PF primes. I've heard about the supposed Canon 200-500 f4, but any rumors of new, lighter primes? a reboot of the DO series? or even a redesign of their 600 f4?


as much as I would love for Canon to start competing with regards to wildlife lenses, it doesn't seem like they have any intent to do so.

seems they are happier fulfilling the professional photojournalism + sports segment rather than the more niche wildlife photographers or hobbyists. potentially understandably so. I imagine Canon follows the money, and the money goes to short focal length, zooms, and low MP bodies with high FPS.

I've heard nothing about any new wildlife lenses, and after they gutted the 100-300 and 200-500 by not including built in TC's, I had to make my decision to leave

AmbientMike wrote:
I felt pretty stupid for listening to the people having intense desires for nikon teles on here after running into a guy using the 500/5.6. He had it on a Z9 and a tripod!!! Not lightweight setup


The Z9 is close 2x the weight of the R5, Z8 still the weight of a big DSLR which is supposedly so heavy according to the mirrorless crowd.

Canon already one upped the competition since their recently released 200-600 goes to 800mm. Nobody else has a 100-300, either. Z9 + 500/5.6 isn't much, if any, lighter than the 400/4 on the R5


The Nikon 500 f5.6 is almost 6 years old at this point and still only weighs 3.22lbs lol. Who would use that on a tripod??

And why are you comparing Canon's most recent and more expensive zoom(s) to 6 year old equipment?

If anything - what you've stated should be pretty embarrassing for Canon

artsupreme wrote:
I would like to see an aperture chart comparison for these mega-zooms that show the respective apertures at each focal length. The Canon 200-800, Sony 200-600, and Nikon 180-600, and might as well throw in the Canon 100-500


I made this little table for ya.

Pretty interesting, I wasn't expecting the results.

The Sony 100-400 looks garbage... only at f4.5 from 100mm - 115mm, and then is stuck at it's slowest f5.6 from 162 - 400mm. Same with the Sony 200-600 that is at f6.3 all the way from 310 - 600mm.

RF 100-500 looks excellent as expected. RF 200-800 is alright.

Nikon 180-600 looks better than I was expecting.

I see people often use 1.4x TC's with their zooms, so I added that in.


If you want to talk about old lenses, the 150-600's have been around forever and the 200-600 & 180-200 have less zoom range even though they cost 2x as much. And aren't lighter

Canon has 200-800 & 100-300 nobody else has, and yes they are absolutely competing. I find it ridiculous that you don't think so

I don't want to talk about old lenses at all. For me, anything prior to mirrorless is irrelevant. Even early mirrorless (think 2018) is old. My point is that if you are interested in wildlife photography TODAY, starting from scratch - Canon isn't even worth thinking about. No PF lenses, the "worst" primes in terms of price to performance, etc. Even their bodies without stacked sensors are funny lol.

The only place Canon is competing for wildlife is on the budget/zoom. In which case they are no longer competing against Nikon/Sony - but instead against OM-1/Fuji which aren't FF. Perhaps that was their entire goal. Maybe that's where the money is. I wouldn't be surprised. Their strategy appears to be that they want to be the best for professional and expensive photojournalism, as well as scoop up entry level wildlife photographers, and any casual players in-between like wedding, portrait, etc.

The 100-300 is a sports lens, not a wildlife lens. Even more so that they neutered by deciding not to put a built in 1.4x.

The 100-500 is probably the most impressive lens Canon has, imo. The 200-800 is pretty unique as well. So I give them full credit there.

molson wrote:
Like many people, I've praised the Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600 zooms for their internal focusing, but I've gradually come around to liking Canon's telescoping zooms just to be able to fit them in a sensible-sized camera bag. There's no perfect solution, unfortunately.


Agree again. When I shot Canon I hated my RF 70-200 and RF 100-500 for being telescoping.

I thought it was so funny when the rumor came out for a 70-200 with internal zoom.

But now that my Nikon setup has so many different options, I yearn for an external zoom just to reduce the initial size when traveling. The RF 70-200 + RF 100-500 is so small it's insane.



Apr 03, 2024 at 11:06 AM
nmerc_photos
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Super telephoto lens rumors?


AmbientMike wrote:


nmerc_photos wrote:
ivancook wrote:
I'm having major envy of Nikon's PF primes. I've heard about the supposed Canon 200-500 f4, but any rumors of new, lighter primes? a reboot of the DO series? or even a redesign of their 600 f4?


as much as I would love for Canon to start competing with regards to wildlife lenses, it doesn't seem like they have any intent to do so.

seems they are happier fulfilling the professional photojournalism + sports segment rather than the more niche wildlife photographers or hobbyists. potentially understandably so. I imagine Canon follows the money, and the money goes to short focal length, zooms, and low MP bodies with high FPS.

I've heard nothing about any new wildlife lenses, and after they gutted the 100-300 and 200-500 by not including built in TC's, I had to make my decision to leave

AmbientMike wrote:
I felt pretty stupid for listening to the people having intense desires for nikon teles on here after running into a guy using the 500/5.6. He had it on a Z9 and a tripod!!! Not lightweight setup


The Z9 is close 2x the weight of the R5, Z8 still the weight of a big DSLR which is supposedly so heavy according to the mirrorless crowd.

Canon already one upped the competition since their recently released 200-600 goes to 800mm. Nobody else has a 100-300, either. Z9 + 500/5.6 isn't much, if any, lighter than the 400/4 on the R5


The Nikon 500 f5.6 is almost 6 years old at this point and still only weighs 3.22lbs lol. Who would use that on a tripod??

And why are you comparing Canon's most recent and more expensive zoom(s) to 6 year old equipment?

If anything - what you've stated should be pretty embarrassing for Canon

artsupreme wrote:
I would like to see an aperture chart comparison for these mega-zooms that show the respective apertures at each focal length. The Canon 200-800, Sony 200-600, and Nikon 180-600, and might as well throw in the Canon 100-500


I made this little table for ya.

Pretty interesting, I wasn't expecting the results.

The Sony 100-400 looks garbage... only at f4.5 from 100mm - 115mm, and then is stuck at it's slowest f5.6 from 162 - 400mm. Same with the Sony 200-600 that is at f6.3 all the way from 310 - 600mm.

RF 100-500 looks excellent as expected. RF 200-800 is alright.

Nikon 180-600 looks better than I was expecting.

I see people often use 1.4x TC's with their zooms, so I added that in.


If you want to talk about old lenses, the 150-600's have been around forever and the 200-600 & 180-200 have less zoom range even though they cost 2x as much. And aren't lighter

Canon has 200-800 & 100-300 nobody else has, and yes they are absolutely competing. I find it ridiculous that you don't think so

I don't want to talk about old lenses at all. For me, anything prior to mirrorless is irrelevant. Even early mirrorless (think 2018) is old. My point is that if you are interested in wildlife photography TODAY, starting from scratch - Canon isn't even worth thinking about. No PF lenses, the "worst" primes in terms of price to performance, etc. Even their bodies without stacked sensors are funny lol.

The only place Canon is competing for wildlife is on the budget/zoom. In which case they are no longer competing against Nikon/Sony - but instead against OM-1/Fuji which aren't FF.

The 100-300 is a sports lens, not a wildlife lens. Even more so that they neutered by deciding not to put a built in 1.4x.

The 100-500 is probably the most impressive lens Canon has, imo. The 200-800 is pretty unique as well. So I give them full credit there.

molson wrote:
Like many people, I've praised the Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600 zooms for their internal focusing, but I've gradually come around to liking Canon's telescoping zooms just to be able to fit them in a sensible-sized camera bag. There's no perfect solution, unfortunately.


Agree again. When I shot Canon I hated my RF 70-200 and RF 100-500 for being telescoping.

I thought it was so funny when the rumor came out for a 70-200 with internal zoom.

But now that my Nikon setup has so many different options, I yearn for an external zoom just to reduce the initial size when traveling. The RF 70-200 + RF 100-500 is so small it's insane.



Apr 03, 2024 at 10:55 AM





  Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #16514858 « Super telephoto lens rumors? »

 




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