A bit more information on the upcoming RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS

[Inspired]

Honestly, I'm fed up over all these new lens with these small apertures. Why can't I get a variable lens that's an f/4 or f/5.6. Why f/8 and f/8? What aim I suppose to do in low light conditions? Here I am thinking that the R-mount is actually better than the EF-mount, Canon is making us pay high prices for crap and before anyone starts talking about quality, I know the quality and yes it is good but how long is Canon going to hide behind that one? That's why Sony has the respect of so much.

 

[Ozarker]

If you can’t get adequate exposure under those conditions with an f/6.3 lens, then there is either something wrong with your Nikon camera or your RAW conversion.

Hi Alan. You're one of the birding experts so a good guy to ask. I'm thinking f/9 at 800mm will give good bokeh?

I've moved to rural Arkansas in the Ozarks. I'm planting lots of fruit trees that I think will have the added benefit of attracting lots of birds. Models are few and far between out here, so I'm going to switch focus to wildlife. The longest lens I ever owned was 400mm and it seemed too short. I figure this lens and a blind will work out great along the fence lines and in my little orchard. Advice?

 

[danfaz]

Honestly, I'm fed up over all these new lens with these small apertures. Why can't I get a variable lens that's an f/4 or f/5.6. Why f/8 and f/8? What aim I suppose to do in low light conditions? Here I am thinking that the R-mount is actually better than the EF-mount, Canon is making us pay high prices for crap and before anyone starts talking about quality, I know the quality and yes it is good but how long is Canon going to hide behind that one? That's why Sony has the respect of so much.

There are plenty of variable aperture RF lenses that start at f/4, 4.5, 5.6.

 

[Longtermer]

Canon is making us pay high prices for crap and before anyone starts talking about quality, I know the quality and yes it is good but how long is Canon going to hide behind that one? That's why Sony has the respect of so much.

So, are the lenses 'crap' or 'good quality'? It's hard to be both at the same time. Although, obviously, compared to the wwonders that Sony produce, peerhaps it is possible ...

 

[AlanF]

Hi Alan. You're one of the birding experts so a good guy to ask. I'm thinking f/9 at 800mm will give good bokeh?

I've moved to rural Arkansas in the Ozarks. I'm planting lots of fruit trees that I think will have the added benefit of attracting lots of birds. Models are few and far between out here, so I'm going to switch focus to wildlife. The longest lens I ever owned was 400mm and it seemed too short. I figure this lens and a blind will work out great along the fence lines and in my little orchard. Advice?

An 800mm f/9 gives a similar dof as 400mm f/2.8! And, if you want to defocus background, you can do it use lightroom or PS.

 

[mxwphoto]

Honestly, I'm fed up over all these new lens with these small apertures. Why can't I get a variable lens that's an f/4 or f/5.6. Why f/8 and f/8? What aim I suppose to do in low light conditions? Here I am thinking that the R-mount is actually better than the EF-mount, Canon is making us pay high prices for crap and before anyone starts talking about quality, I know the quality and yes it is good but how long is Canon going to hide behind that one? That's why Sony has the respect of so much.

Though f8-f9 sounds like really high numbers, I for one have been glad to be able to walk around with the 100-400 f8 all day without feeling tired. Having the OG EF 100-400L out for half a day would tire me out because the weight and size of the lens meant I had to always have a hand supporting the lens so it doesn't swing wildly and to give my neck/shoulder a break.

 

[divinshire]

If you can’t get adequate exposure under those conditions with an f/6.3 lens, then there is either something wrong with your Nikon camera or your RAW conversion.

completely agree. i shoot with the 100-500 at 7.1 almost always, and even images at 12800 iso can be cleaned up to be more than acceptable!

I think people need to learn:

a. how to use their gear properly,
and
b. learn the art of post-processing to really extract the most out of their images.

you'll be amazed how many images can be transformed into usable ones just by doing this.

A wider aperture does not guarantee better images.

 

[birdman916]

“There are some Canon shooters that were hoping for supertelephoto lenses like the Nikon 600mm f/6.3 VR S for the RF mount. While that isn't happening this coming week, stay tuned for some information on those sorts of lenses in the near future”.

Should we expect a comparable lens to the Nikon 600pf coming soon with that last paragraph??

I just bought the z9 and Nikon 600pf and then returned. It was amazing but I had some buyers remorse and difficulty with learning Nikon. I’m hoping canon makes a comparable lens soon

 

[neuroanatomist]

Honestly, I'm fed up over all these new lens with these small apertures. Why can't I get a variable lens that's an f/4 or f/5.6. Why f/8 and f/8?

Canon makes lenses that sell. Inexpensive, relatively slow zooms sell to a large group of people. Expensive, faster lenses sell to a smaller group of people at higher margins.

What aim I suppose to do in low light conditions?

Increase the ISO. Compared to my 1D X, I go two stops higher on my R3, thanks to better sensor tech and better NR during RAW conversion. That means the RF 800/11 is similar in practical terms of noise output to an 800/5.6 on my 1D X (in my case, 840/5.6 with the 600/4 II + 1.4x, so that two stop benefit means I can now use wing-stopping shutter speeds at twilight).

Here I am thinking that the R-mount is actually better than the EF-mount, Canon is making us pay high prices for crap and before anyone starts talking about quality, I know the quality and yes it is good but how long is Canon going to hide behind that one?

Hiding? Last I checked, they print the apertures right on the lenses.

As for quality, my RF 100-300/2.8 is as good as the EF 300/2.8 II and far more convenient as a zoom. My RF 70-200/2.8 gives better IQ (both sharpness and bokeh) than my EF 70-200/2.8 II, and it’s substantially smaller and lighter.

The only RF lens I have that has essentially the same performance and size specs as it’s EF counterpart is the RF 24-105/4L…and that launched at the same price as its EF predecessor.

That's why Sony has the respect of so much.

That’s why almost twice as many people buy Canon. Because they respect Sony so much.

 

[Dragon]

Honestly, I'm fed up over all these new lens with these small apertures. Why can't I get a variable lens that's an f/4 or f/5.6. Why f/8 and f/8? What aim I suppose to do in low light conditions? Here I am thinking that the R-mount is actually better than the EF-mount, Canon is making us pay high prices for crap and before anyone starts talking about quality, I know the quality and yes it is good but how long is Canon going to hide behind that one? That's why Sony has the respect of so much.

You sound suspiciously like a troll, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, this is why you are seeing f/8 and f/9 lenses https://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_300-800_5p6_dg The Sigmonster weighs in at 13 lbs. It is a decent lens for its time, but I suspect the Canon 200-800 will be at least as sharp if not sharper, and will likely be in the neighborhood of 4 lbs. If you look at the difference in camera sensitivity between 2005 and now, the f/9 lens will allow you to shoot in considerably darker conditions than the Sigma did in 2005. In the film era, ISO 400 was as fast as you could go with decent grain. In 2005, ISO 1600 was pretty much the upper limit of usable ISO. In 2023, ISO 12800 is quite usable, particularly with today's noise reduction software. That makes an f/9 lens 1-1/3 stops better than an f/5.6 lens was in 2005.

Canon is trying to make lenses small and light enough to allow folks to actually have said lenses in hand when the opportunity for a shot presents itself. The old saying " the best camera for the shot is the one you have with you" is very true and camera and lens portability means that will be a better camera. I have an EF 800 f/5.6 L. I also have an RF 800 f/11 and and RF 600 f/11. The F/11 lenses have captured far more really cool images in spite of the fact that the L lens is technically better (but in careful testing, frankly, not hugely better).

I will almost certainly buy this new lens as soon as it is announced, thanks to the flexibility of the zoom. I have to believe the market for light, hand-holdable, and affordable lenses is far larger than the market for big, fast, expensive, heavy lenses, no matter how fine they are. One key point with very long lenses is that the atmosphere is most often the limiting factor in IQ and then a better lens serves exactly no purpose. The finest lens you can buy that is able to demonstrate its prowess only a few days a month is not a compelling purchase for most people.

 

[MVP_Kryptonite]

I’d guess this comes with USM similar to the RF100-400. Could be a neat lens and one could end up selling the f11 long lenses.

 

[AlanF]

You sound suspiciously like a troll, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, this is why you are seeing f/8 and f/9 lenses https://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_300-800_5p6_dg The Sigmonster weighs in at 13 lbs. It is a decent lens for its time, but I suspect the Canon 200-800 will be at least as sharp if not sharper, and will likely be in the neighborhood of 4 lbs. If you look at the difference in camera sensitivity between 2005 and now, the f/9 lens will allow you to shoot in considerably darker conditions than the Sigma did in 2005. In the film era, ISO 400 was as fast as you could go with decent grain. In 2005, ISO 1600 was pretty much the upper limit of usable ISO. In 2023, ISO 12800 is quite usable, particularly with today's noise reduction software. That makes an f/9 lens 1-1/3 stops better than an f/5.6 lens was in 2005.

Canon is trying to make lenses small and light enough to allow folks to actually have said lenses in hand when the opportunity for a shot presents itself. The old saying " the best camera for the shot is the one you have with you" is very true and camera and lens portability means that will be a better camera. I have an EF 800 f/5.6 L. I also have an RF 800 f/11 and and RF 600 f/11. The F/11 lenses have captured far more really cool images in spite of the fact that the L lens is technically better (but in careful testing, frankly, not hugely better).

I will almost certainly buy this new lens as soon as it is announced, thanks to the flexibility of the zoom. I have to believe the market for light, hand-holdable, and affordable lenses is far larger than the market for big, fast, expensive, heavy lenses, no matter how fine they are. One key point with very long lenses is that the atmosphere is most often the limiting factor in IQ and then a better lens serves exactly no purpose. The finest lens you can buy that is able to demonstrate its prowess only a few days a month is not a compelling purchase for most people.

If it’s 4lb/1.8kg or below with hood and tripod ring, I‘ll be game.

 

[LSXPhotog]

If this lens has a superior minimum focusing distance to the RF 600 and 800 f/11 primes, I’ll be extremely excited. The aperture does have me very underwhelmed because of how poorly the R7 already focuses at times, but I suspect that once I have my hands on this lens, I will be using my R3/R5/R6II more often for recreational bird photos than the R7…might even be a good excuse to part ways with that camera once again, as this will offer similar reach of the 100-500 with the 1.6 crop…but I will no longer have to worry about the unusual ergonomics, shutter, and pulsing autofocus in lower light, tree-covered scenarios. (Image quality on the R7 has never been an issue for me, but the autofocus performance, ergonomics, and sensor readout always has been.)

 

[Dragon]

If it’s 4lb/1.8kg or below with hood and tripod ring, I‘ll be game.

The 800 f/11 is just under 2.8 lbs, so 4 seems possible, but I wouldn't be offended at 4.5 lbs. It will depend on how much excess diameter the body has and the materials used. the 800 f/11 has a 95mm filter thread, but that is bigger than needed. The new one could, in theory, also use a 95mm filter, but could possibly have a 105mm due to body diameter. The Tamron 150-600 is essentially the same size as the suggested patent numbers (thanks to the DO shortening effect) and the Tammy weighs in at 4.6 lbs with ring and hood. Some of the newer composites are lighter for the same or greater strength (e.g. carbon fiber), so somewhere between 4 and 4.5 lbs would be my bet. The hood and tripod ring could both be extra cost, though. That last bit might offend some, but it could also suggest a bit higher end lens for the base money, given the margins Canon has on hoods and rings .

 

[neuroanatomist]

Some of the newer composites are lighter for the same or greater strength (e.g. carbon fiber), so somewhere between 4 and 4.5 lbs would be my bet. The hood and tripod ring could both be extra cost, though. That last bit might offend some, but it could also suggest a bit higher end lens for the base money, given the margins Canon has on hoods and rings .

The hood for the RF 100-300/2.8 is carbon fiber. At $650, a replacement costs more than the recently discounted price of the RF 600/11. Somehow, I doubt this rumored lens will have a carbon fiber hood.

 

[Doug7131]

Honestly, I'm fed up over all these new lens with these small apertures. Why can't I get a variable lens that's an f/4 or f/5.6. Why f/8 and f/8? What aim I suppose to do in low light conditions? Here I am thinking that the R-mount is actually better than the EF-mount, Canon is making us pay high prices for crap and before anyone starts talking about quality, I know the quality and yes it is good but how long is Canon going to hide behind that one? That's why Sony has the respect of so much.

Are you taking the piss? An 800mm lens with a f4 aperture would require a 200mm front elememt - similar to the Canon 1200mm F5.6 which sold for over $100k. Even at F5.6 you would need a 140mm front element. By keeping the aperture reasonable Canon is allowing this lens to be somewhat affordable and not the size of an actual cannon. Also feel free to link to Sony's affordable 800mm lens - Or don't because Sony don't make any 800mm lenses let alone affordable ones.

 

[mxwphoto]

If it’s 4lb/1.8kg or below with hood and tripod ring, I‘ll be game.

It will definitely have hood and tripod ring, just not included.

 

[frankchn]

If they wanted a f/4 tele zoom, there is the 200-500mm f/4 coming. Of course, they will have to be prepared to part with $13,000 give or take

 

[AlanF]

It will definitely have hood and tripod ring, just not included.

The 800/11 and 600/11 don’t have tripod rings. They have a threaded socket, which saves weight for many purposes.

 

[AlanF]

The 800 f/11 is just under 2.8 lbs, so 4 seems possible, but I wouldn't be offended at 4.5 lbs. It will depend on how much excess diameter the body has and the materials used. the 800 f/11 has a 95mm filter thread, but that is bigger than needed. The new one could, in theory, also use a 95mm filter, but could possibly have a 105mm due to body diameter. The Tamron 150-600 is essentially the same size as the suggested patent numbers (thanks to the DO shortening effect) and the Tammy weighs in at 4.6 lbs with ring and hood. Some of the newer composites are lighter for the same or greater strength (e.g. carbon fiber), so somewhere between 4 and 4.5 lbs would be my bet. The hood and tripod ring could both be extra cost, though. That last bit might offend some, but it could also suggest a bit higher end lens for the base money, given the margins Canon has on hoods and rings .

An 800mm f/9 has a 7% smaller diameter than a 600mm f/6.3. The rival 600/6.3s manage a 95mm filter (with a bit of shortening of focal length) so I am fairly sure Canon will have a 95mm. I’d also be happy with the 800/11 threaded socket instead of a tripod ring but others wouldn’t.