New Canon RF Lenses

SantaFeJoe wrote:

DChan wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:

DChan wrote:DOF also depends on how far away you're from the subject. Sometimes even F11 doesn't give you enough depth of field.

If you’re that close, you probably don’t need a 600mm or 800mm lens. 

Joe

What if you only have a 600 or 800 with you at that time, photographing a small bird the size of a sparrow, a chickadee, or a bushtit??

If the subject is 20 ft away, a 600mm on a Nikon full frame with f11 gives you a depth of field of 2.52 inches, 6 inches if 30 feet away, and 1.38 ft if 50 feet away. If f4 is used, it's 0.84 inches, 2.04 inches, and 5.88 inches respectively.

At least with a variable aperture you have DOF options, unlike these lenses. If these are the only lenses a person has with them, they are probably not a serious photographer or else a beginner.

Joe

That will certainly be the most likely user, however, if you were hiking far into the backcountry but needed a long lens, despite the limitations, it might be a lightweight option.

SantaFeJoe wrote: If these are the only lenses a person has with them, they are probably not a serious photographer or else a beginner.

Joe

I don't know but this sounds elitist to me.

DChan wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote: If these are the only lenses a person has with them, they are probably not a serious photographer or else a beginner.

Joe

I don't know but this sounds elitist to me.

I doubt it, coming from a guy who still shoots a D700 with a manual focus 500 f4P and manual TC14-b TC, or else a 200-400 f4 manual focus lens from 1988. But I do have, and have had along the way, several other lenses ranging from 24mm to 80-200 and 300mm lenses. Every serious photographer I know has more modern equipment than I do. There is nothing wrong with using a 600 or 800 f11 lens, but as I said above, they are probably not a serious photographer or else a beginner. Those lenses with a fixed f11 are very self limiting.

Joe

A detail first impressions of the RF 600/11 & 800/11 ...
https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-600 ... 11-review/

KK Hui wrote:A detail first impressions of the RF 600/11 & 800/11 ...
https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-600 ... 11-review/

The lens collar doesn't rotate, that's too bad.

SantaFeJoe wrote:

DChan wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote: If these are the only lenses a person has with them, they are probably not a serious photographer or else a beginner.

Joe

I don't know but this sounds elitist to me.

I doubt it,...

Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have said it

I still think the f11 teles are probably going to appeal to wildlife videographers more than photographers. Granted f11 is still going to give some harsh bokeh, especially as they will need to be used in bright conditions, but shooting video at 1/50 or 1/60 does negate somewhat the smaller aperture.

I don't see it as anything more than a mass market lens.  OK maybe video but I don't do video.

DChan wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:

DChan wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote: If these are the only lenses a person has with them, they are probably not a serious photographer or else a beginner.

Joe

I don't know but this sounds elitist to me.

I doubt it,...

Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have said it

I know you like to clip my statements to satisfy your desired impression, but I will explain my statement one last time. A beginner won’t care about f11, no rotating tripod collar, having to use high ISO, large DOF in most circumstances, etc. Price is usually more important to start out and a basic DSLR or MIL camera goes along with that. I started out that way(Minolta X-370, 100-500 f8 manual focus, cheap tripod, 50 or 100 ISO film, etc.) and I’m sure nearly all of us have. There is nothing wrong with calling someone a beginner. Without exception, we all have been beginners and some still are starting out. You buy what you think is good until you learn what works best for your needs. That doesn’t mean that you can’t capture fine images within those limitations.

A serious photographer has learned and knows the limitations of different equipment and realizes that these lenses will limit your abilities to capture many types of images and the quality of those images. They serve a very limited purpose and many opportunities will be missed. Just as I know that by using manual focus non-VR/IS lenses and bodies, I am limiting my ability to capture well focused/non-blurry BIF images. The same thing goes for cell phone images. I like the challenge of producing good images with a cell phone. I have to work within the limitations of the low quality AF, sensor size, etc. It can be done(although many will disagree with me on this point), but it’s a challenge. Therefore, most serious photographers know that these lenses will serve only a limited purpose and that they are better off with a higher quality lens. If I was still a serious photographer, I would make a way to have excellent equipment, but I don’t find that financially feasible anymore. My equipment used to pay back at least a part of my investment, but the marketing is much harder and I don’t want to work that hard. Now it’s more for personal enjoyment. 
So now if that still sounds elitist, so be it.

Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:

DChan wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:

DChan wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote: If these are the only lenses a person has with them, they are probably not a serious photographer or else a beginner.

Joe

I don't know but this sounds elitist to me.

I doubt it,...

Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have said it

I know you like to clip my statements to satisfy your desired impression, but I will explain my statement one last time. [snip]

Nah, I think you misunderstood me from the get go. I was simply responding to your comment about why 300 f2.8 and 600 f4 are popular. You seemed to suggest that they are popular because of their apertures, i.e., f 2.8 and f4 which give you dof and that's what people after. Fair enough. But IMO people get those lenses first and foremost because of the reach. The focal length of the lens have much to do with the dof we get. And then of course dof also depends on other factors I had pointed out. That's what I wanted to say. I don't think I'm wrong as far as I know. Nothing about photographer, the person using the lens. You started it. There're other reasons why sometimes the person finds himself/herself only have one camera and one lens with him/her other than because he/she is not a serious photographer hence I found your statement elitist. I thought that would be the end of it. But you didn't want to let go. Even my emoji didn't stop you. You have to be right. I remember you said something like that before...about why take the picture if you don't want it to be a good picture to begin with or something along the line. Statements to me don't recognize that things sometimes are not that black and white. But, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Now that you had made your last statement and I believe I just made mine. Let this be the end of this discussion. Cheers (hope it works this time)

Hands-on first-looks with the Canon RF 100-500mm super-zoom ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cArcN5A0EFM

Question about the extenders:
As far as I understand it they will (so far) only work with the 600, 800 and 100-500.

But they will not work with the RF 2.8/70-200 and I assume probably also not with a possible 4/70-200.

Is this correct?

Markus Jais wrote:Question about the extenders:
As far as I understand it they will (so far) only work with the 600, 800 and 100-500.

But they will not work with the RF 2.8/70-200 and I assume probably also not with a possible 4/70-200.

Is this correct?

Here’s a couple of links with that info:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/extenders/extender-rf1-4x

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/extenders/extender-rf2x

Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:

Markus Jais wrote:Question about the extenders:
As far as I understand it they will (so far) only work with the 600, 800 and 100-500.

But they will not work with the RF 2.8/70-200 and I assume probably also not with a possible 4/70-200.

Is this correct?

Here’s a couple of links with that info:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/extenders/extender-rf1-4x

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/extenders/extender-rf2x

Joe

Thanks!

I think these lenses will serve a purpose - either for those just starting out in photography or for those looking for an ultra-light long lens.

I remember when I first started I wanted the longest zoom lens just for the fun that kind of reach provided (the Minolta zoom). No matter the pictures were often blurry or dark - it was the pre-digital era. My first big lens in the digital era was the Sigma (50-500) 'Bigma' because that is all I could afford. Soon realized the images were not that sharp at the tele end (although some people did manage very well).

I had the Sony 200-600 and yet bought the 600 f4 simply because of the difference in image quality especially when fully open, the separation that the shallow DOF provides is what I really like. I loved my 400 2.8 for this reason but couldn't justify keeping all these lenses, so returned it.

There is no doubt the price and size/heft difference is considerable between these superteles and lighter zooms and I may have to get rid of the big guy as I get older, But for now it is still useful and in this context I have come back full circle

Still, the 600 and 800 f11 lenses will be useful to some people and I think it is a smart marketing move by Canon, none of the other makers have produced anything like this. I predict it will sell quite well.

Pradeep

Primus wrote:I think these lenses will serve a purpose - either for those just starting out in photography or for those looking for an ultra-light long lens.

I remember when I first started I wanted the longest zoom lens just for the fun that kind of reach provided (the Minolta zoom). No matter the pictures were often blurry or dark - it was the pre-digital era. My first big lens in the digital era was the Sigma (50-500) 'Bigma' because that is all I could afford. Soon realized the images were not that sharp at the tele end (although some people did manage very well).

I had the Sony 200-600 and yet bought the 600 f4 simply because of the difference in image quality especially when fully open, the separation that the shallow DOF provides is what I really like. I loved my 400 2.8 for this reason but couldn't justify keeping all these lenses, so returned it.

There is no doubt the price and size/heft difference is considerable between these superteles and lighter zooms and I may have to get rid of the big guy as I get older, But for now it is still useful and in this context I have come back full circle

Still, the 600 and 800 f11 lenses will be useful to some people and I think it is a smart marketing move by Canon, none of the other makers have produced anything like this. I predict it will sell quite well.

Pradeep

It's quite unorthodox, but I agree, they will find a niche. AF will work on them whereas, in the old days of DSLR's, AF either wouldn't work, or it would be awful. I can think of some mountain hiking I've done in the past where I wouldn't take my big telephoto, but something like these lenses could easily be carried.