Canon 800 & 1200 RF lenses

[DavidT]

Did anyone see these two new lenses? I am impressed with the weight of the 800. The price of the two lenses is crazy!! 800MM $17K and 1200 $20K.

Frankly as well as TC work with mirrorless I don't know why you would buy either of these and not just buy a 600F4 and two tele. Now you have 3 lenses in one.

 

[arbitrage]

Looking at the lens diagrams and MTF charts here two lenses are basically a 400 and 600 with an extra set of small elements that looks eerily similar to Canons 2xTC elements. This is why the lengths and weights and MfD stayed in the ballpark of the 400 and 600 respectively.
There is really only one unique UD element that sits in front of the “TC” section that differs from sticking a 2x on 5e 400 or 600.
The o ly advantage these two lenses bring is the ability to reach out even further with RF extenders for up to 2400/16 with the 1200.
The MTFs don’t show any real improvement over the MTFs of the 400/600 with 2xTcs.
weird release.

 

[bleirer]

I see the Canon MTF charts for the 800 and 1200. Looks quite good and the sample pictures look sharp enough. Looks identical as mentioned above to the 600 with a 2x, but they are compatible with the 1.4 and 2x. Not sure what I'd do with 2400mm even if I wanted to spend the money. Link below for the mtf.

RF800mm F5.6 L IS USM Lens

Outstanding Image Quality, 800mm Super-telephoto Fixed Focal Length Lens Expands the EOS R System. Impressively Light at 6.9 lbs., While Retaining High Levels of Image Quality. Minimum Focusing Distance of Approx. 8.53 ft. / 2.6 m. Optical Image Stabilization with up to 4.5 Stops* of Shake...

www.usa.canon.com

RF1200mm F8 L IS USM Lens

Outstanding image quality, 1200mm super-telephoto fixed focal length lens expands the EOS R system. Impressively light at 7.4 lbs., while retaining high levels of image quality. Minimum focus distance of Approx. 14.1 ft. / 4.3 m. Optical Image Stabilization with up to 4 Stops* of Shake...

www.usa.canon.com

RF600mm F4 L IS USM

Super-telephoto, 600mm Lens with Wide f/4 Maximum Aperture, Exclusively for EOS R-series cameras.Optically Identical to EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM lens; Minimum Focusing Distance of 13.78 ft. / 4.2 m.Two Focus Presets Available — Instantly Return to One or Two Memorized Focus Distances.Dust- and...

www.usa.canon.com

 

[RichF]

wonder how well the 1200 w/ 2x TC will work in the real world. In a recent trip to Tanzania we had a number of soft images due to atmospheric haze. I had a 500 PF w/ 1.4 TC on a Z9. Could have used a longer lens, but it still would have been soft

 

[DavidT]

wonder how well the 1200 w/ 2x TC will work in the real world. In a recent trip to Tanzania we had a number of soft images due to atmospheric haze. I had a 500 PF w/ 1.4 TC on a Z9. Could have used a longer lens, but it still would have been soft

You can't beat the atmosphere. But the bigger thing would be how slow you would be at, f16 you would have an iso so high with any shutter speed to stop action it would be pointless. Its cool to say they have them but in real world situations its pretty limited. I have only put my 2x on my 600F4 a couple of times and that is for really little birds that weren't that far away. However I sure wouldn't need a dedicated lens for it that isn't any faster than my 600 with 2x and sure not at 20K

 

[arbitrage]

I've used 1200mm sparingly over the years with mixed success (always better on lower MP bodies). But so many things have to come together to make a good image as you are shooting through so much air and often trying to just reach way to far. 1600mm or 2400mm would be really pointless for wildlife.

I could see 1600-2400 being used for wildlife video documentaries where the haze and IQ isn't as noticeable in the 4K image. Also could be used for surveillance or government. I've heard surf photographers could make use of 1200+ but again would have to have good atmosphere to do so.

 

[FB101]

Can you stack two 2x teleconverters on a 600 f/4 ?
If so would it be equal to this 1200 with a single?
Just curious after reading this thread…

Historically you couldn't, converters were designed in a way that you couldn't stack them and honestly the resulting vignetting and loss of sharpness would have been pretty extreme. With the new mirrorless ones, I don't know but I suspect you cannot either - just looking at the Sony 1.4x TC, I don't see how you'd stack two together.
But it seems that the nikon lenses with the built-in converter you can turn on/off are built in a way to accept an external converter as well.

 

[fcotterill]

800mm reach becomes essential to frame a portrait of a large mammal or fill the frame adequately once subject distances get out to 15m and a bit more. One soon needs more magnification to get similar results at longer distances of 20m out to 30m. I use the chicken of approx 30cm overall size in my cheatsheet.
And I've found 700 - 800m is often too short to frame an adult male caracal - about the size of a medium-sized German shephard. In my experience such cats become very wary once distance drops within 70m. So ideally this situation requires a 1100-1200 ie 800 + TC14 to get decent framing on FX

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[FB101]

The only reason I ask is it physically looks like that’s what Canon did to those two???

It is but they also added an RF adapter at the end of the EF design so I guess that created the real-estate to accommodate an external converter...
I am not an optical engineer so no clue what they have cooked up but I confess that it looks more like "we have parts and chip inventory for those old EF designs that will never sell... can we sucker someone into paying 50% more for them if we pretend they are new?"

 

[fcotterill]

Bizarre indeed - including the massive price tags

The New Canon RF 800mm and RF 1200mm Lenses - A Strange Design Decision?

The new Canon RF 800mm and RF 1200mm lenses are unusual. And not just because they cost $17k and $20K. Why has Canon made this odd decision?

shuttermuse.com

Looking at the lens diagrams and MTF charts here two lenses are basically a 400 and 600 with an extra set of small elements that looks eerily similar to Canons 2xTC elements. This is why the lengths and weights and MfD stayed in the ballpark of the 400 and 600 respectively.
There is really only one unique UD element that sits in front of the “TC” section that differs from sticking a 2x on 5e 400 or 600.
The o ly advantage these two lenses bring is the ability to reach out even further with RF extenders for up to 2400/16 with the 1200.
The MTFs don’t show any real improvement over the MTFs of the 400/600 with 2xTcs.
weird release.

 

[bleirer]

The only reason I ask is it physically looks like that’s what Canon did to those two???

It would be 2400 if they stacked two 2x. It does look similar to one 2x on a 600 though.

 

[bleirer]

800mm reach becomes essential to frame a portrait of a large mammal or fill the frame adequately once subject distances get out to 15m and a bit more. One soon needs more magnification to get similar results at longer distances of 20m out to 30m. I use the chicken of approx 30cm overall size in my cheatsheet.
And I've found 700 - 800m is often too short to frame an adult male caracal - about the size of a medium-sized German shephard. In my experience such cats become very wary once distance drops within 70m. So ideally this situation requires a 1100-1200 ie 800 + TC14 to get decent framing on FX

View attachment 33305

Cool chart. I wish I thought in meters. So the 'subject' fills the frame at each point?

 

[BrianSmall]

It is but they also added an RF adapter at the end of the EF design so I guess that created the real-estate to accommodate an external converter...
I am not an optical engineer so no clue what they have cooked up but I confess that it looks more like "we have parts and chip inventory for those old EF designs that will never sell... can we sucker someone into paying 50% more for them if we pretend they are new?"

Agree. These lenses along with their 600 f/4 just look like they took their old DSLR 600 III and slapped an adapter on the end of it.................and then for the 800 and 1200 they slapped an additional TC on the end of that. No new design or technology...............just spare parts slapped together. No thanks...............I'll stick with my dedicated and designed Sony mirrorless 600. Frankenstein lives!!

At least Nikon looks like they have a plan to create a whole new line of mirrorless telephotos........................if I were still shooting Canon I'd be pissed at this design.

 

[bleirer]

Agree. These lenses along with their 600 f/4 just look like they took their old DSLR 600 III and slapped an adapter on the end of it.................and then for the 800 and 1200 they slapped an additional TC on the end of that. No new design or technology...............just spare parts slapped together. No thanks...............I'll stick with my dedicated and designed Sony mirrorless 600. Frankenstein lives!!

At least Nikon looks like they have a plan to create a whole new line of mirrorless telephotos........................if I were still shooting Canon I'd be pissed at this design.

I guess I'd wait and see what the optical tests said about various aspects of lens performance and judge from there how it compared. If I were shopping for a 20k lens of course.

Plus light bends in predictable ways and has done so since the big bang, but maybe the same design has improved coatings or more precise grindings or whatnot, hard for us to judge too harshly until it is tested on real cameras.

 

[thelordofthelight]

The 800 and 1200mm RF lenses are some of the strangest and ugliest looking telephoto lenses I've seen in a while. I remember Canon users fuming over the RF 400 2.8/600F4 designs as it looked just like the EF mount lenses with a silver adapter slapped. Now the 800/1200 lenses take it up a notch and looks like they slapped a 2X TC and and EF to RF adapter to the 400 and 600. Uninspiring design choices and the price tag is ridiculous!

Bizarre indeed - including the massive price tags

The New Canon RF 800mm and RF 1200mm Lenses - A Strange Design Decision?

The new Canon RF 800mm and RF 1200mm lenses are unusual. And not just because they cost $17k and $20K. Why has Canon made this odd decision?

shuttermuse.com

 

[marklangner]

I recently finally shelled out the big bucks for the 600/F4. I bought the RF mount thinking the native mount to my R5 was the direction of things and a better choice than the older EF mount with an adapter. I did not realize that the RF 600 did NOT have a control ring built it (I had thought it did). I've gotten super used to the EF to RF adapter having this control ring (mine configured to exposure compensation). Now I'm thrilled with my lens, so don't get me wrong...but I sure do miss not having that very convenient control ring for the in the viewfinder exposure comp where you interactively see the results. Now exposure comp is super clumsy and I don't get to really see the changes in the viewfinder (at least the way I'm trying to do it now). Thinking I probably made a super poor choice and should have stuck with the EF mount and the adapter with the control ring built in. Too late for me now.

 

[Backdoor Arts]

I recently finally shelled out the big bucks for the 600/F4. I bought the RF mount thinking the native mount to my R5 was the direction of things and a better choice than the older EF mount with an adapter. I did not realize that the RF 600 did NOT have a control ring built it (I had thought it did). I've gotten super used to the EF to RF adapter having this control ring (mine configured to exposure compensation). Now I'm thrilled with my lens, so don't get me wrong...but I sure do miss not having that very convenient control ring for the in the viewfinder exposure comp where you interactively see the results. Now exposure comp is super clumsy and I don't get to really see the changes in the viewfinder (at least the way I'm trying to do it now). Thinking I probably made a super poor choice and should have stuck with the EF mount and the adapter with the control ring built in. Too late for me now.

Interesting. I've just started thinking about adding the 600mm to my kit, in particular when I looked at the new 800mm and 1200mm and realized that I can just stick the 1.4x and 2x TC's I already have on a 600mm and effectively have them as well. I hadn't looked hard enough to notice the lack of a control ring, but the fact that this is missing on a $13K lens is bothersome to me. I use it on my 100-500mm to switch focus modes, though I could just use the back button eye detection like so many do.

 

[bleirer]

I recently finally shelled out the big bucks for the 600/F4. I bought the RF mount thinking the native mount to my R5 was the direction of things and a better choice than the older EF mount with an adapter. I did not realize that the RF 600 did NOT have a control ring built it (I had thought it did). I've gotten super used to the EF to RF adapter having this control ring (mine configured to exposure compensation). Now I'm thrilled with my lens, so don't get me wrong...but I sure do miss not having that very convenient control ring for the in the viewfinder exposure comp where you interactively see the results. Now exposure comp is super clumsy and I don't get to really see the changes in the viewfinder (at least the way I'm trying to do it now). Thinking I probably made a super poor choice and should have stuck with the EF mount and the adapter with the control ring built in. Too late for me now.

That sucks about no control ring. I like the f(v) mode though, which has the EC viewable in the EVF under control of a wheel.

 

[arbitrage]

800mm reach becomes essential to frame a portrait of a large mammal or fill the frame adequately once subject distances get out to 15m and a bit more. One soon needs more magnification to get similar results at longer distances of 20m out to 30m. I use the chicken of approx 30cm overall size in my cheatsheet.
And I've found 700 - 800m is often too short to frame an adult male caracal - about the size of a medium-sized German shephard. In my experience such cats become very wary once distance drops within 70m. So ideally this situation requires a 1100-1200 ie 800 + TC14 to get decent framing on FX

View attachment 33305

That is a great chart and great work putting that all together.

In my experience reaching out that far is not going to net a good image anyways due to atmosphere. I've never shot in Africa but I would imagine it is among the worst places for atmosphere ruining shots. I think trying for frame filling in those scenarios is a fools game and the better image is probably a wider shot to show environment and be less affected by deteriorated IQ.

 

[arbitrage]

I recently finally shelled out the big bucks for the 600/F4. I bought the RF mount thinking the native mount to my R5 was the direction of things and a better choice than the older EF mount with an adapter. I did not realize that the RF 600 did NOT have a control ring built it (I had thought it did). I've gotten super used to the EF to RF adapter having this control ring (mine configured to exposure compensation). Now I'm thrilled with my lens, so don't get me wrong...but I sure do miss not having that very convenient control ring for the in the viewfinder exposure comp where you interactively see the results. Now exposure comp is super clumsy and I don't get to really see the changes in the viewfinder (at least the way I'm trying to do it now). Thinking I probably made a super poor choice and should have stuck with the EF mount and the adapter with the control ring built in. Too late for me now.

If you have an R3 you can program the MF ring to be a Control Ring instead. AFAIK this is only an R3 feature at this time...but I could be wrong.

Control ring RF 400 and RF 600 f4 with R3 owners

 

[fcotterill]

Cool chart. I wish I thought in meters. So the 'subject' fills the frame at each point?

Thanks, it is simple to calculate using this equation for magnification for known variables: in this case, Subject size, Distance and Focal Length. This can use different dimensions. Although I'm comfortable with some imperial measures (as in ballistics of English rifles), I tend to use metric for distances and weights
The image sizes are set at ~15mm (Black silhouette) and 20mm (Blue) using my deliberately chosen extremes for overall sizes of birds/small mammals... 5cm, 10cm and 30cm. So 30cm is an ideal proxy (from my experience in these environs since childhood), for a large galliform such as a guineafowl; or equally a larger raptor sitting/standing proud. These are often encountered at about 20m or luckily closer, but such situation still demand 800mm and more.

The elephant icon of 3m (300cm) is an average sized cow; bulls can stand much taller and always seem even bigger towering over one on foot (!)

I use similar back-of-envelope calculations for tight close ups to plan environscapes using Hyperfocal Distances. The rule is simple actually. In such situations forget any subject smaller than a lion/medium antelope with a lens of focal length longer than 35-40mm. This is if one wants to get acceptable sharpness out to the horizon. Moreover, f8 is often not enough, as f16 widens to the optimal DoF; and the 24-35mm range is the optimal focal length.
....note, I'm working with the framing of FX format, however.

That is a great chart and great work putting that all together.

In my experience reaching out that far is not going to net a good image anyways due to atmosphere. I've never shot in Africa but I would imagine it is among the worst places for atmosphere ruining shots. I think trying for frame filling in those scenarios is a fools game and the better image is probably a wider shot to show environment and be less affected by deteriorated IQ.

Yah Thanks.... atmospheric haze can be a huge problem on hot days especially over bare ground, such as calcretes in the Kalahari and bare granite domes etc. Much of the central African savannas are burnt off, especially across Zambia in the dry season which can be an even bigger factor IME especially on floodplains. However, one makes the best of the situation in the season of the year. Early morning is optimum obviously, but remarkable interactions can happen at any time of the day! And one learns to exploit the circumstances...remember Jay Maisel's quip - there's no such thing as bad light, only knowing how to use it. One can leverage dust as some photographers such as have shown very successfully.

Too often I encounter shy subjects when on foot, or a key opportunity is just too far from the road/track in a vehicle or fixed hide.
And often in my style I strive for tight framing eg portraits of medium sized to large mammals, which demands 800mm and more. It is all the question of what story one is trying to tell. I posted some examples last October, and #8 holds as strong as ever. I now have acquired a Used 180-400 TC14... 800 PF is the next target with the Z-TC's.

 

[Roy]

Did anyone see these two new lenses? I am impressed with the weight of the 800. The price of the two lenses is crazy!! 800MM $17K and 1200 $20K.

Frankly as well as TC work with mirrorless I don't know why you would buy either of these and not just buy a 600F4 and two tele. Now you have 3 lenses in one.

A TC is handy for backup but has a few drawbacks - Image quality, Autofocus etc...

 

[bleirer]

Nikon following their lead: most expensive TC ever!

 

[eaj101]

800mm reach becomes essential to frame a portrait of a large mammal or fill the frame adequately once subject distances get out to 15m and a bit more. One soon needs more magnification to get similar results at longer distances of 20m out to 30m. I use the chicken of approx 30cm overall size in my cheatsheet.
And I've found 700 - 800m is often too short to frame an adult male caracal - about the size of a medium-sized German shephard. In my experience such cats become very wary once distance drops within 70m. So ideally this situation requires a 1100-1200 ie 800 + TC14 to get decent framing on FX

View attachment 33305

Fabulous graphic! Thanks for doing the work. Definitely publishable.