Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #16524239 « Super telephoto lens rumors? »

  

nmerc_photos
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: 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, about 2.5K more than the RF600 with the 1.4x. Apples to apples the RF600 F4 vs TC600mm F4. Canon is slightly lighter without converter about the same with converter on. MFD slightly longer with Nikon600TC, 14.11' vs 13.8' with RF so is having a built in TC worth $ 2.5 more. Personal preference I guess. I wish the Canon would have incorporated it but not a deal breaker for me.

For me could I live with the PF800 and or 600mmF6.3 vs my RF600mm F4. It would be really hard to give up a 600F4. I've owned every one Canon ever produced.

We are going to have to disagree. Nikon is doing a lot of good things right now and Canon is dragging a bit but I can't see Canon glass being inferior in any regard.


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, 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:
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 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 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


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


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.



Apr 15, 2024 at 12:53 PM
nmerc_photos
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: 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, about 2.5K more than the RF600 with the 1.4x. Apples to apples the RF600 F4 vs TC600mm F4. Canon is slightly lighter without converter about the same with converter on. MFD slightly longer with Nikon600TC, 14.11' vs 13.8' with RF so is having a built in TC worth $ 2.5 more. Personal preference I guess. I wish the Canon would have incorporated it but not a deal breaker for me.

For me could I live with the PF800 and or 600mmF6.3 vs my RF600mm F4. It would be really hard to give up a 600F4. I've owned every one Canon ever produced.

We are going to have to disagree. Nikon is doing a lot of good things right now and Canon is dragging a bit but I can't see Canon glass being inferior in any regard.


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, 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:
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 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 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


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


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.



Apr 15, 2024 at 12:48 PM





  Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #16524239 « Super telephoto lens rumors? »

 




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