Is a Canon RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM a possibility?

[koenkooi]

I run Windows with a 13900k and a 4070 TI which is a pretty fast combo. With that, PL is reasonably fast from a processing perspective, but it doesn't touch a candle to LR for organizational speed and convenience. The consequence is that I use LR for import and file management and both Topaz and PL for processing specific images. The file management features of LR are hard to beat. I currently have 71k images in the library and and can almost instantly sort in many ways, including by lens, or by camera type. That appeals to my inner geek.

The DAM aspect is what I like the most about LR, the 'recent' masking updates are a close second. Having DxO PR4 available as a plugin covers almost all of my needs, I only need to figure out a better workflow for getting images to/from Helicon for focus stacking.

 

[P-visie]

I only need to figure out a better workflow for getting images to/from Helicon for focus stacking.

The Helicon focus plugin for LR Classic takes care of that: https://www.heliconsoft.com/faq-helicon-focus/

See FAQ: Is there a Helicon Focus plugin for Photoshop Lightroom? How does it work?

 

[koenkooi]

The Helicon focus plugin for LR Classic takes care of that: https://www.heliconsoft.com/faq-helicon-focus/

See FAQ: Is there a Helicon Focus plugin for Photoshop Lightroom? How does it work?

That process works, but I prefer a slightly different way:

1. Import all RAW files into LR
2. Manually find the RAW files on your disk, add then to PR4
3. Have PR4 output DNGs to a separate folder
4. Have Helicon import that folder
5. Stack
6. Save
7. Import resulting DNG into LR
8. Group RAWs (CR3) and result (single DNG) in a LR stack
9. Delete folder with PR4 generated DNGs

With the plugin workflow, I'd need to import the PR4 DNGs into LR and delete them after. And delete the collection PR4 creates.... Doing that in LR instead of in Finder takes a lot more clicks, which I why I circumvent it for focus stacks.

But you are correct that when stacking originals, the Helicon plugin does all the heavy lighting.

 

[GaryMak]

I run Windows with a 13900k and a 4070 TI which is a pretty fast combo. With that, PL is reasonably fast from a processing perspective, but it doesn't touch a candle to LR for organizational speed and convenience. The consequence is that I use LR for import and file management and both Topaz and PL for processing specific images. The file management features of LR are hard to beat. I currently have 71k images in the library and and can almost instantly sort in many ways, including by lens, or by camera type. That appeals to my inner geek.

This is an interesting discussion topic: "image management." And of course, in the immortal words of the Buddha (or was it Gandhi?) "To each his own," depending of the specific needs of a photographer, some programs might offer better solutions. That said then,

For myself, I swore off programs that create a library based on its internal structure to "manage my photos for me" a long time ago. After being burned severely twice - by programs being discontinued - and then countless times in-between by "glitches," "bugs", "upgrades" and various and sundry incompatibilities, all of which combined to lose the information that was painstakingly input and then waste my very valuable time "fixing" things just to get back to where I was before the program decided to #!$@! things up, I discovered GraphicConverter, which was the software bundled with MacOS before "iPhoto" was even a twinkle in Steve Jobs' eye. I couldn't believe what this program did. I have used this amazing program ever since.

I can't really think what this program can't do, as it does everything I've ever needed. And is it not a "library management" software; It is an image management program, independent of any "library." In other words, it allows you to manage your individual images, not create a proprietary library, which then forever requires the software to be used to find anything. In this way, every photo I've ever taken (back to digitized slides and film from the 70s - and even digitized family photos from the early 20th Century) has been numbered, titled in detail, paired (with Raw & JPG versions), tagged (i.e.,.star or label), input with GPS (if from another source), etc., so that it is searchable by any program besides GC ("Graphic Converter), such as Spotlight or the Windows search tool. You can search and find images by virtually any field or fields, though I've never needed to search by camera or lens (I have no idea why that would be a need myself but...) In other words, every photo I've ever taken is my "database" regardless of where it resides, or even in what OS or computer it resides, or even whose photos they are - you just need the search criteria. And folder can be set up and viewed in a SlideShow mode, which aids in reviewing image for culling, editing, etc.

As an example, a nearly 30 GB folder of some recent Christmas Day photos I took of the family (JPG/RAW pairs, plus some mp4, mov files) from three different cameras, were loaded very rapidly onto my computer (MacStudio M1 Ultra, 128GB RAM) via SD or CFExpress card, chronologically numbered by time (as is my protocol), dated, titled (JPG/RAW auto-paired and titled together) in about 9-10 minutes. Then, drilling down to adding specific details to subsets of image titles (e.g.,. "Mary Opening Diamond Broach gift" or "Portrait - Harry and Sally on Couch", etc.) takes only as much time as you can find and group the subjects and type the additional information. In all, 30 GB of Christmas holiday photos/movies were done in about 30 minutes, give or take. And let's say I discovered that I wrote "Cristmas" instead of "Christmas" on 800 or so images eek. That can be corrected in a matter of seconds.

After that, "exporting" to Photoshop for refinement and Raw-to-JPG final conversion is as easy as drag-and-drop from a slide show style browser window which also allows for quick editing out of lousy shots. While GC does have basic PS-like editing capabilities and there are a couple of features that are easier, I mostly work in PS with plug-ins like NikEfex, Anthropics or Topaz as I might deem appropriate.

Am I suggesting this is the best way and that everyone should do it this way? No. I am merely outlining a way that I do it and done it for almost 30 years, which might be a useful idea for someone looking for an alternative way to the way they are currently doing it and not satisfied with that.

 

[Dragon]

In terms of actual number of pixels, you are absolutely correct. In terms of gain of resolution, it's closer to only 15-20% more at low iso because of the much harsher low pass filter on the R7. The 1.4x on the RF 100-500 on the RF increase sresolution by only about the same amount (I've posted about this in the past, tested with 3 copies of the extender). So your observations that the R7 approximately = R5 + 1.4x is consistent with this.

Thorough analysis and consistent with my experience. I suspect the AAF filter on the R7 is not in the way as much as the resolution limit of the lens itself, given the consistency across the two bodies. Clearly nothing to be gained adding the 1.4 TC with the R7 other than a larger (and maybe slightly softer) image. The key observation is that I see very little improvement when going to the EF 800 f/5.6 L (other than the need for tripod and a bit over a stop of aperture), so the 200-800 is a very good lens for the money and ease of use.

 

[AlanF]

Thorough analysis and consistent with my experience. I suspect the AAF filter on the R7 is not in the way as much as the resolution limit of the lens itself, given the consistency across the two bodies. Clearly nothing to be gained adding the 1.4 TC with the R7 other than a larger (and maybe slightly softer) image. The key observation is that I see very little improvement when going to the EF 800 f/5.6 L (other than the need for tripod and a bit over a stop of aperture), so the 200-800 is a very good lens for the money and ease of use.

I think the 200-800mm is underrated at 800 mm. It's pretty close to the RF 800mm f/5.6 on the TDP site. I squeeze the best sharpness out of it for heavy cropping by processing in DxO PL, exporting without any lens sharpening and then doing Standard sharpening in Topaz AI.

 

[Dragon]

I think the 200-800mm is underrated at 800 mm. It's pretty close to the RF 800mm f/5.6 on the TDP site. I squeeze the best sharpness out of it for heavy cropping by processing in DxO PL, exporting without any lens sharpening and then doing Standard sharpening in Topaz AI.

Agreed. The RF 800 f/5.6 L is really a 400mm lens with an integral 2x TC, so not surprising. That is why I kept the EF 800 L as it is actually sharper than the RF lens. As far as I can see, the only advantages of the RF version are weight and closer focus. Both of the L lenses are better at f/8 than f/5.6, but the improvement is more significant on the RF version. The element rearrangement on the RF big whites makes them lighter and much easier to produce as the huge fluorite element is gone, but the performance is not better than the next to last EF generation. Ditto for the 600 mm. Canon filed several patents a couple of years ago on long catadioptric lenses with AF and IS and that would be very interesting, in spite of the noticeable loss of DOF with a cat. There was a 1200 mm in the mix and it was not very big. It may be that AF turned out to be difficult with the weird OOF behavior of cats. Likely a whole new set of phase detect algorithms needed for good performance. I never played with the Minolta/Sony AF cat, but it reportedly did work on SLRs with PDAF, so it seems possible. One big plus of cats is that close focus is possible with the Tamron 500 being the poster boy.

 

[GaryMak]

Ditto to @Del Paso's post. As replied later to @usern4cr, I was just illustrating the convenience of the size of the RF 100-500mm for packing. I don't go hiking with a backpack for the camera but have it on a Blackrapid strap for instant use. I've been on very basic Safaris across Africa with internal bush flights, paddling up tributaries of the Amazon, zodiacing to Galapgos Islands and in the wilds of Borneo, and I always travel very light without a tripod and with the minimum of gear. I would undoubtedly have got more and some better shots with bigger and longer lenses but am content with the ones I did.

You misunderstood my post!
This is not what I suggested. My original post was exclusively about the 100-500 being light enough to carry in a backpack. I never implied that you should carry the same gear as I do...

"I just cannot imagine the 100-500 too heavy to carry in a backpack. That's what I often do, plus a second body and 5-6 additional lenses."
OK, if you say so. I guess I misunderstood what you meant by the above somehow...

And that was my original point about wanting to travel light with a versatile lens - and in retrospect, perhaps the conversation veered off as a result of not defining some terms, like "travel" for one, and what is meant by, and the duration of, "carry". "Travel" for me is a duration of at least multiple days leading into weeks where "carry" means you're carrying all of this around on your back all day every day. If 90% of the shots need to be taken at a distance, e.g.,.on safari, of course that's the primary lens one would bring, with a supplemental wide(r) angle or wide-zoom lens. (Of course, on safari, one wouldn't be really carrying this equipment. It'd be in the truck in the back seat...Ditto Galapagos where your shore time would be in short bursts of a few hours in morning and then again in the afternoon, the rest on board...) But if 90% of the shots are wide-to-medium, such as in towns and cities, then the main sense would reflect that, and lugging around a heavy, extra 100-500 lens all day for those 10% shots that might come up isn't worth the weight for me. ... which is why for me, a more versatile "L" lens would be nice.

 

[koenkooi]

"I just cannot imagine the 100-500 too heavy to carry in a backpack. That's what I often do, plus a second body and 5-6 additional lenses."
OK, if you say so. I guess I misunderstood what you meant by the above somehow...

And that was my original point about wanting to travel light with a versatile lens - and in retrospect, perhaps the conversation veered off as a result of not defining some terms, like "travel" for one, and what is meant by, and the duration of, "carry". "Travel" for me is a duration of at least multiple days leading into weeks where "carry" means you're carrying all of this around on your back all day every day. If 90% of the shots need to be taken at a distance, e.g.,.on safari, of course that's the primary lens one would bring, with a supplemental wide(r) angle or wide-zoom lens. (Of course, on safari, one wouldn't be really carrying this equipment. It'd be in the truck in the back seat...Ditto Galapagos where your shore time would be in short bursts of a few hours in morning and then again in the afternoon, the rest on board...) But if 90% of the shots are wide-to-medium, such as in towns and cities, then the main sense would reflect that, and lugging around a heavy, extra 100-500 lens all day for those 10% shots that might come up isn't worth the weight for me. ... which is why for me, a more versatile "L" lens would be nice.

You’re describing how our recent family vacations went When visiting towns or the beach I would be using a shoulderbag with the R8+28mm or 24-105 and snacks, for outings along the shore I’d use a backpack to have the 100-500 with me.

If I sacrifice a bit of the snacks, the RF100-400 can be added to the shoulderbag.

 

[AlanF]

"I just cannot imagine the 100-500 too heavy to carry in a backpack. That's what I often do, plus a second body and 5-6 additional lenses."
OK, if you say so. I guess I misunderstood what you meant by the above somehow...

And that was my original point about wanting to travel light with a versatile lens - and in retrospect, perhaps the conversation veered off as a result of not defining some terms, like "travel" for one, and what is meant by, and the duration of, "carry". "Travel" for me is a duration of at least multiple days leading into weeks where "carry" means you're carrying all of this around on your back all day every day. If 90% of the shots need to be taken at a distance, e.g.,.on safari, of course that's the primary lens one would bring, with a supplemental wide(r) angle or wide-zoom lens. (Of course, on safari, one wouldn't be really carrying this equipment. It'd be in the truck in the back seat...Ditto Galapagos where your shore time would be in short bursts of a few hours in morning and then again in the afternoon, the rest on board...) But if 90% of the shots are wide-to-medium, such as in towns and cities, then the main sense would reflect that, and lugging around a heavy, extra 100-500 lens all day for those 10% shots that might come up isn't worth the weight for me. ... which is why for me, a more versatile "L" lens would be nice.

Having your own definition of common everyday words like "travel" and "carry" that differ from the dictionary definitions that everyone else uses would indeed make it difficult for you to understand people.

 

[AlanF]

If I sacrifice a bit of the snacks, the RF100-400 can be added to the shoulderbag.

I too use the RF 100-400mm as my long lens while walking around towns because it is so small, light and inconspicuous. The second lens combo I showed in my luggage pack of the R7 + RF 100-400 is a great asset for travel giving a resolution not too far off the R5 + RF 100-500mm and yet being comfortable and not drawing attention in cities. It's standard gear fro me when going to conferences etc.

 

[GaryMak]

Having your own definition of common everyday words like "travel" and "carry" that differ from the dictionary definitions that everyone else uses would indeed make it difficult for you to understand people.

"Travel" and "carry" indeed being "common everyday words" thus have broad meanings and are subjected to wide interpretations unless otherwise specified (as one might notice if one checked that dictionary...) so all the more reason to define them, unlike say, medical terminology, which are specifically developed to assure the narrowest field of interpretations... "Camera" and "lens"are also common, everyday words, yet we somehow see the need to get specific, like "Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM"...

 

[SvO2]

This conversation is a good example of why photography clubs can't attract anyone under 60 these days

 

[GaryMak]

This conversation is a good example of why photography clubs can't attract anyone under 60 these days

(And also perhaps, maybe a bit because the term "camera" has changed to mean "iPhone", and "a photograph" now just means "a snapshot with a filter" for Instagram posts, and "photography" is being usurped by "videography" and "vlogging" on TikTok and SnapChat... Different audience there... not a good thing and not a bad thing... just a transition thing... still, it's in line with your point...)