Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #16514870 « Super telephoto lens rumors? »

  

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


AmbientMike wrote:


nmerc_photos wrote:
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 entire argument and basis is that if you were interested in wildlife photography TODAY, starting from scratch - Canon is absolutely not competing at the upper end.

I'm not sure if any OEM's make actual 150-600s or if they were all 3rd party (Tamron/Sigma) in which case I've been very unimpressed with the images, sizes, and weights of those lenses.

Canon is competing heavily on the budget and zoom end, and nowhere to be seen on the mid/long end.

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.


Idk why you'd ignore DSLR lenses, given the excellent superteles and adapter.

The 150-600 C about the same weight as 200-600, but more zoom range, even though it's been around forever and costs half as much.

Apparently the 70-200/4 is small, but not really any lighter. Watching Fro's video on the 100-300, I didn't really care about an internal tc, just adds weight and if the 1x-2x ever materializes, you'd probably prefer that


For people on a budget, DSLR may make sense. But I am fortunate not to have to consider budget when making gear choices. I am interested in the best of the best for myself. And for others - I am interested in the best price to performance, but only on modern gear. I don't want to suggest old DSLR gear that is no longer serviceable, or will soon be.

I am intrigued by the possibility of a Canon 1x-2x. I think it's the only shot they have to captivate the long lens crowd. But I still think (at least in theory) that a built in 1.4x provides more versatility than an external 1x-2x.

AmbientMike wrote:
the 800pf looked appealing at first. Only 5+ lbs , $6500!!! But, that's not much lighter than the 600/4, and $6500 is still a lot.

The 500 PF looked appealing, then some guy got on here saying how bad the 100 500 is vs the 500pf, and I looked more. One zooms, one is 2/3 stop faster, I'd probably pick the zoom, myself, weight about the same. Saying Canon is asleep at the wheel and Nikon is so much better doesn't really make much sense imo

And I never really got the excitement over the 200 600, it's pretty big and heavy and not particularly fast. The 200 800 looks pretty appealing, and the 600 & 800 f/11 look pretty usable vs 7.1 on aps, which I've used a ton (2/3 down to improve 55-250 performance.) FF should be 1.3 stops better at high iso, and the IS looks better, so in theory better in low light


The 800PF blows the RF 600 + 1.4x and RF 800 5.6 out of the water in nearly all regards except MFD.

RF 600 F4
MSRP - $12,999
Used - $9,000
Weight - 6.81lbs
Length - 18.58"
MFD - 13.78'

RF 800 F5.6
MSRP - $16,999
Used - $11,000
Weight - 6.92lbs
Length - 17.01"
MFD - 8.53'

Z 800 F6.3
MSRP - $6,500
Used - $5,000
Weight - 5.26lbs
Length - 15.16"
MFD - 16.4'

The 800PF is 50%+ cheaper, 39% lighter, and 41% shorter than the RF 600 + RF 1.4x combo. "Not that much lighter" lol. Every single one of those attributes is significant.

Having used the RF 100-500 and 500PF extensively, I personally lean towards the RF 100-500. I love that zoom. Although the 500PF is sharper, it doesn't have the flexibility of a zoom. And since the 100-500 is more modern, it has better AF, less external parts needed, etc.

I think the 200-600 is the staple of the budget wildlife photographer's kit. I personally don't often find a use for one - because agree, they are the weight of a prime. but in my local circle, nearly all of the photographers I shoot with use a 200-600 explicitly, or at least start with one until they can afford a prime. So it's clearly a lens that has value.



Apr 03, 2024 at 11:33 AM
nmerc_photos
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Super telephoto lens rumors?


AmbientMike wrote:


nmerc_photos wrote:
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 entire argument and basis is that if you were interested in wildlife photography TODAY, starting from scratch - Canon is absolutely not competing at the upper end.

I'm not sure if any OEM's make actual 150-600s or if they were all 3rd party (Tamron/Sigma) in which case I've been very unimpressed with the images, sizes, and weights of those lenses.

Canon is competing heavily on the budget and zoom end, and nowhere to be seen on the mid/long end.

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.


Idk why you'd ignore DSLR lenses, given the excellent superteles and adapter.

The 150-600 C about the same weight as 200-600, but more zoom range, even though it's been around forever and costs half as much.

Apparently the 70-200/4 is small, but not really any lighter. Watching Fro's video on the 100-300, I didn't really care about an internal tc, just adds weight and if the 1x-2x ever materializes, you'd probably prefer that


For people on a budget, DSLR may make sense. But I am fortunate not to have to consider budget when making gear choices. I am interested in the best of the best for myself. And for others - I am interested in the best price to performance, but only on modern gear.

I am intrigued by the possibility of a Canon 1x-2x. I think it's the only shot they have to captivate the long lens crowd. But I still think (at least in theory) that a built in 1.4x provides more versatility than an external 1x-2x.

AmbientMike wrote:
the 800pf looked appealing at first. Only 5+ lbs , $6500!!! But, that's not much lighter than the 600/4, and $6500 is still a lot.

The 500 PF looked appealing, then some guy got on here saying how bad the 100 500 is vs the 500pf, and I looked more. One zooms, one is 2/3 stop faster, I'd probably pick the zoom, myself, weight about the same. Saying Canon is asleep at the wheel and Nikon is so much better doesn't really make much sense imo

And I never really got the excitement over the 200 600, it's pretty big and heavy and not particularly fast. The 200 800 looks pretty appealing, and the 600 & 800 f/11 look pretty usable vs 7.1 on aps, which I've used a ton (2/3 down to improve 55-250 performance.) FF should be 1.3 stops better at high iso, and the IS looks better, so in theory better in low light


The 800PF blows the RF 600 + 1.4x and RF 800 5.6 out of the water in nearly all regards except MFD.

RF 600 F4
MSRP - $12,999
Used - $9,000
Weight - 6.81lbs
Length - 18.58"
MFD - 13.78'

RF 800 F5.6
MSRP - $16,999
Used - $11,000
Weight - 6.92lbs
Length - 17.01"
MFD - 8.53'

Z 800 F6.3
MSRP - $6,500
Used - $5,000
Weight - 5.26lbs
Length - 15.16"
MFD - 16.4'

The 800PF is 50%+ cheaper, 39% lighter, and 41% shorter than the RF 600 + RF 1.4x combo. "Not that much lighter" lol. Every single one of those attributes is significant.

Having used the RF 100-500 and 500PF extensively, I personally lean towards the RF 100-500. I love that zoom. Although the 500PF is sharper, it doesn't have the flexibility of a zoom. And since the 100-500 is more modern, it has better AF, less external parts needed, etc.

I think the 200-600 is the staple of the budget wildlife photographer's kit. I personally don't often find a use for one - because agree, they are the weight of a prime. but in my local circle, nearly all of the photographers I shoot with use a 200-600 explicitly, or at least start with one until they can afford a prime. So it's clearly a lens that has value.



Apr 03, 2024 at 11:32 AM
nmerc_photos
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Super telephoto lens rumors?


AmbientMike wrote:


nmerc_photos wrote:
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 entire argument and basis is that if you were interested in wildlife photography TODAY, starting from scratch - Canon is absolutely not competing at the upper end.

I'm not sure if any OEM's make actual 150-600s or if they were all 3rd party (Tamron/Sigma) in which case I've been very unimpressed with the images, sizes, and weights of those lenses.

Canon is competing heavily on the budget and zoom end, and nowhere to be seen on the mid/long end.

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.


Idk why you'd ignore DSLR lenses, given the excellent superteles and adapter.

The 150-600 C about the same weight as 200-600, but more zoom range, even though it's been around forever and costs half as much.

Apparently the 70-200/4 is small, but not really any lighter. Watching Fro's video on the 100-300, I didn't really care about an internal tc, just adds weight and if the 1x-2x ever materializes, you'd probably prefer that


For people on a budget, DSLR may make sense. But I am fortunate not to have to consider budget when making gear choices. So I am interested for myself in the best of the best. And for others - I am interested in the best price to performance, but only on modern gear.

I am intrigued by the possibility of a Canon 1x-2x. I think it's the only shot they have to captivate the long lens crowd. But I still think (at least in theory) that a built in 1.4x provides more versatility than an external 1x-2x.

AmbientMike wrote:
the 800pf looked appealing at first. Only 5+ lbs , $6500!!! But, that's not much lighter than the 600/4, and $6500 is still a lot.

The 500 PF looked appealing, then some guy got on here saying how bad the 100 500 is vs the 500pf, and I looked more. One zooms, one is 2/3 stop faster, I'd probably pick the zoom, myself, weight about the same. Saying Canon is asleep at the wheel and Nikon is so much better doesn't really make much sense imo

And I never really got the excitement over the 200 600, it's pretty big and heavy and not particularly fast. The 200 800 looks pretty appealing, and the 600 & 800 f/11 look pretty usable vs 7.1 on aps, which I've used a ton (2/3 down to improve 55-250 performance.) FF should be 1.3 stops better at high iso, and the IS looks better, so in theory better in low light


The 800PF blows the RF 600 + 1.4x and RF 800 5.6 out of the water in nearly all regards except MFD.

RF 600 F4
MSRP - $12,999
Used - $9,000
Weight - 6.81lbs
Length - 18.58"
MFD - 13.78'

RF 800 F5.6
MSRP - $16,999
Used - $11,000
Weight - 6.92lbs
Length - 17.01"
MFD - 8.53'

Z 800 F6.3
MSRP - $6,500
Used - $5,000
Weight - 5.26lbs
Length - 15.16"
MFD - 16.4'

The 800PF is 50%+ cheaper, 39% lighter, and 41% shorter than the RF 600 + RF 1.4x combo. "Not that much lighter" lol. Every single one of those attributes is significant.

Having used the RF 100-500 and 500PF extensively, I personally lean towards the RF 100-500. I love that zoom. Although the 500PF is sharper, it doesn't have the flexibility of a zoom. And since the 100-500 is more modern, it has better AF, less external parts needed, etc.

I think the 200-600 is the staple of the budget wildlife photographer's kit. I personally don't often find a use for one - because agree, they are the weight of a prime. but in my local circle, nearly all of the photographers I shoot with use a 200-600 explicitly, or at least start with one until they can afford a prime. So it's clearly a lens that has value.



Apr 03, 2024 at 11:29 AM
nmerc_photos
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Super telephoto lens rumors?


AmbientMike wrote:


nmerc_photos wrote:
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 entire argument and basis is that if you were interested in wildlife photography TODAY, starting from scratch - Canon is absolutely not competing at the upper end.

I'm not sure if any OEM's make actual 150-600s or if they were all 3rd party (Tamron/Sigma) in which case I've been very unimpressed with the images, sizes, and weights of those lenses.

Canon is competing heavily on the budget and zoom end, and nowhere to be seen on the mid/long end.

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.


Idk why you'd ignore DSLR lenses, given the excellent superteles and adapter.

The 150-600 C about the same weight as 200-600, but more zoom range, even though it's been around forever and costs half as much.

Apparently the 70-200/4 is small, but not really any lighter. Watching Fro's video on the 100-300, I didn't really care about an internal tc, just adds weight and if the 1x-2x ever materializes, you'd probably prefer that


For people on a budget, DSLR may make sense. But I am fortunate not to have to consider budget when making gear choices. So I am interested for myself in the best of the best. And for others - I am interested in the best price to performance, but only on modern gear.

I am intrigued by the possibility of a Canon 1x-2x. I think it's the only shot they have to captivate the long lens crowd. But I still think (at least in theory) that a built in 1.4x provides more versatility than an external 1x-2x.

AmbientMike wrote:
the 800pf looked appealing at first. Only 5+ lbs , $6500!!! But, that's not much lighter than the 600/4, and $6500 is still a lot.

The 500 PF looked appealing, then some guy got on here saying how bad the 100 500 is vs the 500pf, and I looked more. One zooms, one is 2/3 stop faster, I'd probably pick the zoom, myself, weight about the same. Saying Canon is asleep at the wheel and Nikon is so much better doesn't really make much sense imo

And I never really got the excitement over the 200 600, it's pretty big and heavy and not particularly fast. The 200 800 looks pretty appealing, and the 600 & 800 f/11 look pretty usable vs 7.1 on aps, which I've used a ton (2/3 down to improve 55-250 performance.) FF should be 1.3 stops better at high iso, and the IS looks better, so in theory better in low light


The 800PF blows the RF 600 + 1.4x and RF 800 5.6 out of the water in nearly all regards except MFD.

RF 600 F4
MSRP - $12,999
Used - $9,000
Weight - 6.81lbs
Length - 18.58"
MFD - 13.78'

RF 800 F5.6
MSRP - $16,999
Used - $11,000
Weight - 6.92lbs
Length - 17.01"
MFD - 8.53'

Z 800 F6.3
MSRP - $6,500
Used - $5,000
Weight - 5.26lbs
Length - 15.16"
MFD - 16.4'

The 800PF is 50% cheaper (MSRP - $7000 cheaper), 39% lighter, and 41% shorter than the RF 600 + RF 1.4x combo. "Not that much lighter" lol. Every single one of those attributes is significant.

Having used the RF 100-500 and 500PF extensively, I personally lean towards the RF 100-500. I love that zoom. Although the 500PF is sharper, it doesn't have the flexibility of a zoom. And since the 100-500 is more modern, it has better AF, less external parts needed, etc.

I think the 200-600 is the staple of the budget wildlife photographer's kit. I personally don't often find a use for one - because agree, they are the weight of a prime. but in my local circle, nearly all of the photographers I shoot with use a 200-600 explicitly, or at least start with one until they can afford a prime. So it's clearly a lens that has value.



Apr 03, 2024 at 11:23 AM
nmerc_photos
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Super telephoto lens rumors?


AmbientMike wrote:


nmerc_photos wrote:
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 entire argument and basis is that if you were interested in wildlife photography TODAY, starting from scratch - Canon is absolutely not competing at the upper end.

I'm not sure if any OEM's make actual 150-600s or if they were all 3rd party (Tamron/Sigma) in which case I've been very unimpressed with the images, sizes, and weights of those lenses.

Canon is competing heavily on the budget and zoom end, and nowhere to be seen on the mid/long end.

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.


Idk why you'd ignore DSLR lenses, given the excellent superteles and adapter.

The 150-600 C about the same weight as 200-600, but more zoom range, even though it's been around forever and costs half as much.

Apparently the 70-200/4 is small, but not really any lighter. Watching Fro's video on the 100-300, I didn't really care about an internal tc, just adds weight and if the 1x-2x ever materializes, you'd probably prefer that


AmbientMike wrote:
the 800pf looked appealing at first. Only 5+ lbs , $6500!!! But, that's not much lighter than the 600/4, and $6500 is still a lot.

The 500 PF looked appealing, then some guy got on here saying how bad the 100 500 is vs the 500pf, and I looked more. One zooms, one is 2/3 stop faster, I'd probably pick the zoom, myself, weight about the same. Saying Canon is asleep at the wheel and Nikon is so much better doesn't really make much sense imo

And I never really got the excitement over the 200 600, it's pretty big and heavy and not particularly fast. The 200 800 looks pretty appealing, and the 600 & 800 f/11 look pretty usable vs 7.1 on aps, which I've used a ton (2/3 down to improve 55-250 performance.) FF should be 1.3 stops better at high iso, and the IS looks better, so in theory better in low light






Apr 03, 2024 at 11:08 AM





  Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #16514870 « Super telephoto lens rumors? »

 




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