Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #16524136 « Super telephoto lens rumors? »

  

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


drobertfranz wrote:
nmerc_photos wrote:
AmbientMike wrote:
Canon Rf 800/5.6 is over 3 lbs lighter than the 10lb Nikon 800/5.6 some are apparently still using over the 800pf. So the Canon is not so embarrassing, after all

Canon has more super telephotos than anyone else. Led with the 1st <7lb 600/4, lighter 100-500 vs the 200-600 and 200-500 and then came out going to 800mm on their zoom. Rhe Rf 100-400 is probably the lightest 100-400 available, and you might not like f/11, but it looks pretty usable especially on ff. And the competition on under 3lb 800mm (the 600/11 is closer to 2lbs IIRC) is pretty thin.

So i don't buy into arguments that Canon isn't competing or innovating. They are.



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 discuss. Which is pretty silly.

Canon only has "more super telephotos than anyone else" if you include decades of old lenses that nobody wants to use. People only use them if they don't have a choice.

the RF 100-500 and RF 200-800 are the only innovations Canon has shown for wildlife in a long time


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.


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'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.



Apr 15, 2024 at 10:55 AM
nmerc_photos
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Super telephoto lens rumors?


drobertfranz wrote:
nmerc_photos wrote:
AmbientMike wrote:
Canon Rf 800/5.6 is over 3 lbs lighter than the 10lb Nikon 800/5.6 some are apparently still using over the 800pf. So the Canon is not so embarrassing, after all

Canon has more super telephotos than anyone else. Led with the 1st <7lb 600/4, lighter 100-500 vs the 200-600 and 200-500 and then came out going to 800mm on their zoom. Rhe Rf 100-400 is probably the lightest 100-400 available, and you might not like f/11, but it looks pretty usable especially on ff. And the competition on under 3lb 800mm (the 600/11 is closer to 2lbs IIRC) is pretty thin.

So i don't buy into arguments that Canon isn't competing or innovating. They are.



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 discuss. Which is pretty silly.

Canon only has "more super telephotos than anyone else" if you include decades of old lenses that nobody wants to use. People only use them if they don't have a choice.

the RF 100-500 and RF 200-800 are the only innovations Canon has shown for wildlife in a long time


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.


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 600 F4 + 1.4x beats the 800PF. I have already stated that

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.



Apr 15, 2024 at 10:44 AM





  Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #16524136 « Super telephoto lens rumors? »

 




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