NatureScapes.net Forums

Canon has just announced 800 f5.6 and 1200mm f8 RF lenses:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/456250354 ... r-rf-mount

Have all the usual Canon super tele features and a nic eprice tag, $17K and $20K for the 800 and 1200 respectively.

14ft MFD on the 1200 actually makes it a viable lens for bird photography and a 7.3lb weight is not bad at all but $20K (gulp)!!! One thing is for certain, Canon is definitely going all in on relatively fast long glass.

You have the 800/11 for $1k and this 800/5.6 for $17k, surely there is room for something in between? Are you interested Sigma/Tamron?

Makes me fearful that Nikon's upcoming 800/6.3 is going to be in that ballpark for pricing.

Yeah, I was saying $10K for the Nikon 800/6.3 in a previous thread and many thought I was nuts  That's only 1/3 stop less.  Perhaps I should reevaluate and say $12K

Out of curiosity:
How much harder, from a technical point of view, would it be to make really big zooms.
Could a hypothetical 5.6-6.3/200-800 or maybe a 5.6-7.1/200-800 be about the same weight as the 5.6/800 prime?
I think a 200-800 with a weight below 3.5kg or even a 200-1000 (maybe 5.6-7.1 or 5.6-8) would be a much more flexible lens in the field.
But because no one is offering anything zoom beyond 600m in high quality (L, S, G/GM or Sigma Art), I wonder if such a lens would just be too hard to make.

Having had two 800 lenses in my life, I'd wish canon had come out with a 500 and 300 first. I've no idea of what you do with a 1200mm lens.

Canon advertises you can use the 1200mm with their new RF2x teleconverter to shoot at 2400mm..
First flight shot with that combo should win some kind of prize...

More from Canon with photos by Charles Glatzer:

800 f5.6

And:

1200 f8

Joe

Personally, I think the 1200mm is a niche lens. For birds, more reach always seems to be needed, but there will be so much air in front of that lens that it'll be difficult to shoot without atmospheric issues. The 800 isn't much better and I think a 600f4 with teleconverters is a more versatile option that probably gives up little in comparison. But it's great for bragging rights. lol

E.J. Peiker wrote:Yeah, I was saying $10K for the Nikon 800/6.3 in a previous thread and many thought I was nuts  That's only 1/3 stop less.  Perhaps I should reevaluate and say $12K

There's little doubt it will be that price range or higher.  I made a plot of lens price vs front element diameter for lenses between the Nikon 300PF and the Canikon 800 f5.6s and it's a fairly linear relationship.  It predicts about a price of about $10K for an 800 f6.3  as it has the same front element dia as a 500mm f4.  The plot is in the Nikon 800mm f6.3 price thread.  Could well be higher like these two releases to cover development costs and low volumes with Covid over the last couple of years perhaps.  The 1200 lens is clearly off the chart as it's a niche lens, possibly like the prior 1200 f5.6 EF lens that was made to order for  huge prices as I recall.

I can't figure out why Canon abandoned the 500mm f4. Or came out with the equivalent of the VERY popular Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF lens.

I guess they like even numbers.....

Anyone planning to buy the buy the new 1200mm?

Brian K. wrote:I can't figure out why Canon abandoned the 500mm f4. Or came out with the equivalent of the VERY popular Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF lens.

I guess they like even numbers.....

I find this puzzling, too, maybe they think that there is no rush because the 100-500 exists.

The cost of the 800 and 1200 make the 600f4 almost look like a bargain.

Brian K. wrote:I can't figure out why Canon abandoned the 500mm f4. Or came out with the equivalent of the VERY popular Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF lens.

I guess they like even numbers.....

It seems all manufacturers abandoned the 500 f/4

Markus Jais wrote:Out of curiosity:
How much harder, from a technical point of view, would it be to make really big zooms.
Could a hypothetical  5.6-6.3/200-800 or maybe a 5.6-7.1/200-800 be about the same weight as the 5.6/800 prime?
I think a 200-800 with a weight below 3.5kg or even a 200-1000 (maybe 5.6-7.1 or 5.6-8) would be a much more flexible lens in the field.
But because no one is offering anything zoom beyond 600m in high quality (L, S, G/GM or Sigma Art), I wonder if such a lens would just be too hard to make.

Technically feasible, absolutely... but a lot more complex with a lot more glass and a lot more moving parts resulting in a much bigger and heavier package that is not going to be quite as sharp.  And finally, VERY expensive.

Markus Jais wrote:Out of curiosity:
How much harder, from a technical point of view, would it be to make really big zooms.
Could a hypothetical  5.6-6.3/200-800 or maybe a 5.6-7.1/200-800 be about the same weight as the 5.6/800 prime?
I think a 200-800 with a weight below 3.5kg or even a 200-1000 (maybe 5.6-7.1 or 5.6-8) would be a much more flexible lens in the field.
But because no one is offering anything zoom beyond 600m in high quality (L, S, G/GM or Sigma Art), I wonder if such a lens would just be too hard to make.

I'm still looking for a 150-600 f5.6L like canon made in the 1980's.  Think of what they could do with 40 years of new technology.  As to going to 800mm, I'm not so sure.  Big jump in price size and weight.  Prefer a top quality 150-600 (optical quality like the 200-400) and use a 1.4 if necessary.

Wildflower-nut wrote:

Markus Jais wrote:Out of curiosity:
How much harder, from a technical point of view, would it be to make really big zooms.
Could a hypothetical  5.6-6.3/200-800 or maybe a 5.6-7.1/200-800 be about the same weight as the 5.6/800 prime?
I think a 200-800 with a weight below 3.5kg or even a 200-1000 (maybe 5.6-7.1 or 5.6-8) would be a much more flexible lens in the field.
But because no one is offering anything zoom beyond 600m in high quality (L, S, G/GM or Sigma Art), I wonder if such a lens would just be too hard to make.

I'm still looking for a 150-600 f5.6L like canon made in the 1980's.  Think of what they could do with 40 years of new technology.  As to going to 800mm, I'm not so sure.  Big jump in price size and weight.  Prefer a top quality 150-600 (optical quality like the 200-400) and use a 1.4 if necessary.

The Sony 200-600 fits that bill although it's 1/3 stop slower but it is a sensational lens, significantly above the third party 150-600 offerings both optically and in usability as it is an internal zoom with just a quarter turn for the full zoom range and impeccably sharp.  It is just as good with a 1.4x. Can't use it on a Canon though but it does show that such a lens does exist in today's mirrorless world.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Wildflower-nut wrote:

Markus Jais wrote:Out of curiosity:
How much harder, from a technical point of view, would it be to make really big zooms.
Could a hypothetical  5.6-6.3/200-800 or maybe a 5.6-7.1/200-800 be about the same weight as the 5.6/800 prime?
I think a 200-800 with a weight below 3.5kg or even a 200-1000 (maybe 5.6-7.1 or 5.6-8) would be a much more flexible lens in the field.
But because no one is offering anything zoom beyond 600m in high quality (L, S, G/GM or Sigma Art), I wonder if such a lens would just be too hard to make.

I'm still looking for a 150-600 f5.6L like canon made in the 1980's.  Think of what they could do with 40 years of new technology.  As to going to 800mm, I'm not so sure.  Big jump in price size and weight.  Prefer a top quality 150-600 (optical quality like the 200-400) and use a 1.4 if necessary.

The Sony 200-600 fits that bill although it's 1/3 stop slower but it is a sensational lens, significantly above the third party 150-600 offerings both optically and in usability as it is an internal zoom with just a quarter turn for the full zoom range and impeccably sharp.  It is just as good with a 1.4x. Can't use it on a Canon though but it does show that such a lens does exist in today's mirrorless world.

The Sony 200-600 is also very affordable at $2k. 

Hopefully Canon will wake up.  I'm too invested in Canon to change.  I actually tried the Sony but I'm too old a dog to learn their menu.

The Sony 200-600 is a marvellous lens. Nikon has one on their roadmap, so they will have their work cut out for them to match/exceed that lens.