RF 800 f/5.6 and RF 1200 f/8

[Kayaker72]

In the category "because HDNitehawk just bought a RF 600" Canon has just announced (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=36775&Title=Just-Announced-Canon-RF-800mm-F5-6-L-IS-USM-and-RF-1200mm-F8-L-IS-USM-Super-Telephoto-Lenses)their RF 800 f/5.6 and RF 1200 f/8.

And they do accept teleconverters.

To help with any type of sting their Rick, the prices are $17,000 and $20,000, respectively.

Introducing the Canon RF800mm F5.6 L IS USM with Explorer of Light Charles Glatzer - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEXY_SoWQ2Q)

Introducing the Canon RF1200mm F8 L IS USM with Peter Read Miller - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNA1yo6HZ2A)

Most eyepopping stats, other than the 6.9 lb (RF 600 is 6.8 lbs) and 7.4 lb weight, respectively. The RF 800 at 17 inches long, is shorter than the RF 600 at 18.6 inches long.

But, surprising to me in the other direction, the MTF of the RF 600 plus extenders really holds its own.

2950

[Joel Eade]

I think this is analogous to the RF lenses.....many well known photographers recommended the EF600mm f/4 plus teleconverters over the EF800mm f/5.6

The price of these new lenses will obviously be prohibitive for most folks, including me:rolleyes:

Maybe affordable a few years down the line on the used market.

Great information provided here, thanks for posting this.

[Fast Glass]

You beat me to it Kayaker! I literally came on here to share this because my local camera store Glazers Camera has it available for pre-order those lenses.

I know it was rumored for a while, but I was not 100% sure they would do it.

This is as close as I'll ever get to owning a 1200mm f/5.6. In the digital age today f/8 is still more useful than f/5.6 on film with it's very limited ISO ratings.

Really exciting!

Now, if you will excuse me. I'm about to pick up my two 1Dx III's.:D

[Fast Glass]

https://youtu.be/LEXY_SoWQ2Q

[DavidEccleston]

Someone needs to work on a mount replacement that lets us stack extenders, so we can have 600+2X+2X.

[HDNitehawk]

Looking at the MTF you posted, it might be debatable how it would play out.
For example the 1.4 vs the native 800mm.
Notice the 600mm starts out higher, and maintains on the Sagittal, and it actually finishes higher on the outside.
The Meridional falls off on the 30mm line quicker for the 600mm.
I wonder how this will work out in the real world.

A description of the MTF's.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/learn/education/topics/article/2019/april/Reading-and-Understanding-Lens-MTF-Charts/Reading-and-Understanding-Lens-MTF-Charts

I often find myself shooting at F/4 over having a 1.4x just to get that extra stop of light.
But the big question, will any gain be worth $4,000.

The Canon RF800mm F5.6 L IS USM and Canon RF1200mm F8 L IS USM are both scheduled to be available in late May 2022 for an estimated retail price of $16,999.00 and $19,999.00, respectively**.
https://downloads.canon.com/nw/lens/rf600mm-F4-L-IS-USM/RF600mm_F4L_MTF_CHART.JPG

[Kayaker72]

I think this is analogous to the RF lenses.....many well known photographers recommended the EF600mm f/4 plus teleconverters over the EF800mm f/5.6


Exactly. The 600 mm (and I'll include 500 mm as well) seems like a sweet spot in the lens design. This may be a combination of technical and economics, but on both EF and now it looks like RF, a 600 mm plus 1.4x TC appears to be a great alternative.



I often find myself shooting at F/4 over having a 1.4x just to get that extra stop of light.
But the big question, will any gain be worth $4,000.


I start at a point where I assume Canon are not dummies. They would not make a sizable investment in 2 new lenses if they did not think they could differentiate them. Granted, I've seen some posts where people are opening wondering how much overlap there is between the RF 400/600 and these two new lenses (maybe not much as certainly the exterior of the 400/800 and 600/1200 is similar).

But, getting back to the basic question, what would the differentiator be? Why would Canon think someone would pay that extra $4k? If it isn't IQ at a given focal length, I am wondering about AF speed. Certainly, with a 2x TC, AF speed takes a hit. I've never noticed much of a hit with a 1.4, but I am wondering if the new lenses have blazing fast AF.

Regardless, these are high priced specialty tools. Not something I am looking for. But give me the rumored 200-500 f/4, and a built in 1.4xTC and I might pre-order it.

[Fast Glass]

Indeed specialized. I'd probably lean towards the 1200mm f/8.

But having a 800mm f/5.6 is nice as well, for when I can frame the shot with a shorter focal length.

Plusses and minuses for sure, but the new 800mm 1200mm options definitely gets me excited and a lens I very likely will own at some point.

[HDNitehawk]

Notice the fall off in Resolution at the native lengths.
From 800 to 1200 they are comparable.
The RF 600 is at .9 vs .8 on the others.


295229532954

[Fast Glass]

But just thinking about the 1200mm f/8 with a 2X, assuming it can still AF. And the fact the R3 noise performance is so good. It is mind numbing that a lens with that kind of focal length is as usable as it is!

Yes the aperture is narrow and you would not be shooting is super dim light. But still, that is incredible to have that kind of usability, still lower weight than the EF 800mm f/5.6, shorter and still have 2400mm!!!!!

If shot on a R5, it can be used in 1.6 crop mode to reach an even more staggering effective focal length.

Besides all the obvious downsides of such a long focal length. Just having it as an option is amazing.

[Fast Glass]

https://youtu.be/cSGHuzn7koA

https://youtu.be/vDpsNraYOJo

[HDNitehawk]

If shot on a R5, it can be used in 1.6 crop mode to reach an even more staggering effective focal length.



I got a chuckle out of that one.

Thinking on the opposite end though and using the R5, the 800mm has a minimum focal distance of 8.53 feet and a magnification of .34x.
Compare that to the 600mm has a minimum focal distance of 13.78 feet and a magnification of .15x. The 600mm would be 63% farther away.
If you are photographing small birds at the minimum distance that you may need to crop you will have far more pixels on the subject. The .12" of DOF might be a little tight. At .405' x .27' FOV many birds may not fit the framing.

[Fast Glass]

Yup indeed, as has been said. Both are quite specialized lenses that always have a certain appeal even if one cannot afford it or does not have a use for it.

Kinda anything that is extreme or the best at anything. They are just cool to look at and apriciate them for what they are.

If I have the budget I'd own both. Depending on how many weddings I do it might be an option.

Or if Bitcoin raises it's value a bunch and I make bank. Lol.

[HDNitehawk]

Depending on how many weddings I do it might be an option.


Best wedding lens for a Royals wedding when you are not invited.

[Fast Glass]

Lol, true that.

Sell paparazzi images of them to the AP or Reuters.:p