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

[Canikso19]

So in all reality, Canon is offering these photographers a lens that doesn't need a teleconverter to cover 200-800mm F/9. So even if it's $2000, it's a discount over getting the Sony lens for $2000 and then getting a $500 teleconverter. Clearly, the huge amount of people who use the Sony 200-600 with a teleconverter haven't had a problem with 840mm F/9, so I think the aperture is a nonissue at this point.

Exactly what I thought, when I read about this lens. I wouldn't say that the aperture is a nonissue, but if you are not able to spend the money for a big tele prime, you have no other choice.

That's a good way to look at it and probably Canon's strategy to "beat" Sony and Nikon: offer a similar sized and priced lens with 200mm more focal length.
But if the aperture at 600mm is F7.1 or F8 then it will be a disappointment to me.

I think you will be disappointed then. The 200-800 starts at F6.3, so I guess it won't be F6.3 at 600mm and then drops all the way from F6.3 to F9 from 600mm to 800mm. More likely the aperture will already be F7.1 or F8 at 600mm.

 

[AlanF]

Surely 400mm f/2.8 would be similar to 800mm f/5.6?

In terms of depth of field, 400mm f/2.8 is similar to 800mm f/11 (and you have one!). dof varies as 1/(focal length squared). You can check on dofmaster site.

 

[scyrene]

In terms of depth of field, 400mm f/2.8 is similar to 800mm f/11 (and you have one!). dof varies as 1/(focal length squared). You can check on dofmaster site.

Oh! Does it not vary based on subject distance?

 

[masterpix]

Canon will officially announced the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS on November 2, 2023. This lens seems to be generating a lot of positive hype. There are still some unknowns about the lens, but we only have to wait a few more days for the launch. The Camera Insider is reporting that it’s definitely not an

See full article...

"L" lens of "DO", what really matter is its sharpness and the optical performance.

 

[scyrene]

Oh! Does it not vary based on subject distance?

Oh wait, I suppose we're talking about a ratio rather than an absolute amount.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Oh! Does it not vary based on subject distance?

Of course it does. But at the same subject distance 400mm 2.8 and 800mm F9 have the same dof

 

[neuroanatomist]

Of course it does. But at the same subject distance 400mm 2.8 and 800mm F9 have the same dof

Actually, 800mm f/9 is shallower. 800mm f/11 would match 400mm f/2.8 at the same distance.

 

[AlanF]

Oh! Does it not vary based on subject distance?

yes, also as distance squared. If you are the same distance with the 400mm and 800mm, the dof of the 800mm is 4x less at the same aperture.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I currently don't have any system and looking to get back into photography. It's 50/50 at the moment between Nikon and Canon. Lenses like this might make me decide between one or the other. Now you might think it's nonsense but I'm not the only person deciding on which system to invest in.

Look at the features and properties that are important to you, the kind of photography you do, and the direction you think your needs might grow. Don't let a bunch of internet gearheads tell you what's important.

Also, there is only so much you can learn by sitting at home reading specs and reviews. If there is a real camera store near you, go there (some Best Buy stores have a surprisingly good selection too). Look at the equipment close up. Hold it in your hands. Get a feel for how you like holding it and using it, the ergonomics, the button and switch positions, the menus, etc. These are all subjective factors, and nobody else can tell you what's right for you.

As @neuroanatomist said, any current camera system will enable you take excellent images.

 

[Canikso19]

yes, also as distance squared. If you are the same distance with the 400mm and 800mm, the dof of the 800mm is 4x less at the same aperture.

That’s right, but what’s usually more interesting is the dof when the subject in the frame is equivalent size.
And in that case only aperture matters for dof.

 

[Kit.]

In terms of depth of field, 400mm f/2.8 is similar to 800mm f/11 (and you have one!). dof varies as 1/(focal length squared).

Unless you bring your shots to the same magnification of the final image (which mean the same size of the circle of confusion on the subject plane).

Then, if the shooting distance is much smaller than the hyperfocal distance, depth of field only depends on the (effective) f-number.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Unless you bring your shots to the same magnification of the final image (which mean the same size of the circle of confusion on the subject plane).

Then, if the shooting distance is much smaller than the hyperfocal distance, depth of field only depends on the (effective) f-number.

 

[vangelismm]

That’s right, but what’s usually more interesting is the dof when the subject in the frame is equivalent size.
And in that case only aperture matters for dof.

Yes, comparison without frame equivalency is meaningless.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Look at the features and properties that are important to you, the kind of photography you do, and the direction you think your needs might grow. Don't let a bunch of internet gearheads tell you what's important.

Also, there is only so much you can learn by sitting at home reading specs and reviews. If there is a real camera store near you, go there (some Best Buy stores have a surprisingly good selection too). Look at the equipment close up. Hold it in your hands. Get a feel for how you like holding it and using it, the ergonomics, the button and switch positions, the menus, etc. These are all subjective factors, and nobody else can tell you what's right for you.

As @neuroanatomist said, any current camera system will enable you take excellent images.

Lately, I don't really care about specs that much or which camera has 0.5 stops more dynamic range. More important is what lenses are available.

I am mostly interested in reportage, documentary, and wildlife photography.

I handled almost all the cameras I am considering buying: Fuji XT-5 (did not like the grip), X-H2 (quite good), and Sony (they feel like a sharp brick in the hand).

I tried some Nikon equipment last week and had a chat with a Nikon rep who had all kinds of Nikon bodies and lenses at hand. I was especially impressed by the Nikon Zf, a camera I had not even considered before. I also loved the size and handling of the 400 4.5 and the 26mm pancake.

Lenses that drag me towards Canon are the the 14-35 (with it was 14-50, would be the perfect travel lens), the 100-500, and a bunch of EF lenses.

Would also be very interested in a lens like this 200-800, if the quality is there.

 

[AlanF]

Unless you bring your shots to the same magnification of the final image (which mean the same size of the circle of confusion on the subject plane).

Then, if the shooting distance is much smaller than the hyperfocal distance, depth of field only depends on the (effective) f-number.

The depth of field is calculated from DoF = u² × 2 × N × C / f² , where u is the distance to the subject, f is the focal length, N is the aperture and C is the circle of confusion. It's clear that there is a circle of confusion here.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Exactly what I thought, when I read about this lens. I wouldn't say that the aperture is a nonissue, but if you are not able to spend the money for a big tele prime, you have no other choice.



I think you will be disappointed then. The 200-800 starts at F6.3, so I guess it won't be F6.3 at 600mm and then drops all the way from F6.3 to F9 from 600mm to 800mm. More likely the aperture will already be F7.1 or F8 at 600mm.

Yeah, I missed that it already starts at 6.3. In that case, it will most likely be a "zoom version" of the 600/800 F11 primes. That means good enough but very consumer-level features and build quality.

 

[Kit.]

The depth of field is calculated from DoF = u² × 2 × N × C / f² , where u is the distance to the subject, f is the focal length, N is the aperture and C is the circle of confusion. It's clear that there is a circle of confusion here.

It is clear that the circle of confusion here is measured on the sensor plane.

It is probably less clear (but not less true) that when you are concerned about rendering of the branches right behind that goldcrest, such a measure for the circle of confusion is irrelevant, and what is relevant is the size of the projection of the circle of confusion back to the goldcrest plane.

 

[EricN]

I'm a big fan of narrow aperture superteles but with respect, most of the time one's position is "selected" by the subject (eg the bird). I'm also not a fan of fake bokeh, though it can work in some situations.

I know, those aren't always ideal. Unfortunately, I think dealing with significantly heavier and more expensive lenses are more difficult to overcome

 

[David - Sydney]

Innovation at OM is in question.
They have not released anything yet that was not a rebranded Olympus camera.
As long as they share a mount with Panasonic I am not sure if that even matters much,

I concur about innovation but OM has a market niche that seems to be profitable even with a small market share. Matching R&D innovation costs with their market share is all about longevity in my mind

 

[swkitt]

About the "L" classification, Canon has always been very clear about what L means: L only means that the glass is treated with Fluorite coating. It says nothing about the IQ, the weather-sealing etc.
If this lens has no fluorite coating, it is not L. Doesn't mean it cannot be well engineered.
For some reasons, it looks like Canon doesn't add fluorite coating to DO glass, so I guess we can expect a DO front element and it's not L for this same reason (like the 400/4 DO).