Canon R 800mm and 600mm f/11 lenses

Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,197
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Story.

It will be interesting to see how these perform. They have a fixed aperture, IS and priced at $900 and $700US.

They can also take Canon's new 1.4x and 2x TCs. Imagine, 1600mm f/22 on an RF body. Seems silly.
Those are hobbyist prices. Not everyone (most everyone) isn’t off shooting birds and wildlife 3x a week. More like 3x a year.

So Canon reduced their overall cost. Not “pro” because the bulk of the market isn’t.

For Olympus 100-400 price will be critical. These may be plastic fantastics, but their value could be a very important strategy.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
6,269
Location
Knoxville, TN
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
It will be interesting to see how they perform against mft lenses. They are not going to give the 300Pro any competition, but if they are decent, they could be better options than the current 70/100-300 lenses. A comparison with the mft 100-400 ones will be key.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,084
Location
Boston
That 85/2 macro is also a nice lens at a nice price and fits a dual role for hobbyists - portrait and macro. Canon, while developing solutions for the top end, are addressing the lower end.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,986
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
That 85/2 macro is also a nice lens at a nice price and fits a dual role for hobbyists - portrait and macro. Canon, while developing solutions for the top end, are addressing the lower end.
The “low end” has been an area Canon has neglected their EOS R lens catalog. It’s nice to see them offering some lenses that aren’t $2k+

As for the f/11 telephotos, I’m not too certain of their value proposition. I would’ve much preferred them to be f/8 (not that I’m an active buyer of either).
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
628
Location
Finland
Those are hobbyist prices. Not everyone (most everyone) isn’t off shooting birds and wildlife 3x a week. More like 3x a year.

So Canon reduced their overall cost. Not “pro” because the bulk of the market isn’t.

For Olympus 100-400 price will be critical. These may be plastic fantastics, but their value could be a very important strategy.
I don't think one should compare a zoom to long-tele prime. A prime is much harder to use, because you can't look where the subject is and then zoom in on it. A long-tele prime is of course great for maximum reach situations.

Anyway the correct comparison is more to 75-300mm or 100-300mm as they are budget lenses like those Canon's. The new 100-400mm is between the budget and pro lenses.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,084
Location
Boston
I think the MFD on those tele lenses, though, are pretty bad. (4.5 and 6m). Which, if you are birding, might make sense, but limits strongly for other uses.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
628
Location
Finland
I think the MFD on those tele lenses, though, are pretty bad. (4.5 and 6m). Which, if you are birding, might make sense, but limits strongly for other uses.
One important thing to consider when carrying such a long lens with you. Having multiple purposes is great for such lenses. Anyone have a guess how much bigger a great MFD makes a lens?
 

Hypilein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
1,506
I wonder how the performance compares to the 100-300. One thing is for sure. While certainly compact it is still about double the size of the 100-300.

Camerasize

If I was forced to go FF this would be the lens I would buy for my occasional wildlife needs though. I bet they will sell tons.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,269
4.5m and 6m MFDs. 82mm and 95mm filter threads respectively for the 600/11 and 800/11. Not a lot of magnification either and I'm kind of questioning the optical performance of these lenses. At f/11 the aperture won't be that beneficial on the R5's higher density sensor since they're diffraction limited in that case... These lenses have to be sharp at f/11 for the R5 and the R6 will just tolerate f/16. Nevermind, apparently they don't stop down either.

They are however economic reach with autofocus, throw in the collapsible design to make them compact they're not-bad inexpensive primes. They're just not the same tier of lens as something like the PL200/2.8 and O300/4.
 
Last edited:

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,269
I think the MFD on those tele lenses, though, are pretty bad. (4.5 and 6m). Which, if you are birding, might make sense, but limits strongly for other uses.
It isn't a panacea for birding, at least in my personal experience. I've used a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with a TC to push it all the way to 420mm and for smaller birds I've found I can be still within 2-4 meters when they're not in flight. The frame fill factor makes a big difference, especially when I'm not cropping to 1/6 the original resolution. What benefits that were present on the R5 will be thrown away as a fraction of the sensor will be used and the R6 won't be able to frame fill easily, I suspect that at a minimum sticking on the 1.4x TC would be helpful for the R5.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,269
I apologize for a triple post but:

It does seem to be very, very limited in capabilities given the fixed aperture which means stopping down isn't an option on the R6. These are either outstanding sharp at f/11 (doubt this) or they're kind of a consumer telephoto that's designed to be as light as possible for long distance stuff. Anything that isn't sunlight is definitely ISO 25600++ territory fast.

These seem more like Canon trying very hard to work in reverse to go up against the 75/100-300 and 100-400 types of lenses we get a lot of advantages from on Micro Four Thirds and it doesn't seem to have been that good of a swing. They are however on the inexpensive enough side to maybe stop a system switch (Ex: E-M5III + 75-300) for someone that just absolutely needs focal length reach above everything.

Looking to some of my own shots taken over the years I think I'd have to be operating the R6 at around ISO12800-25600 for some of the shots I've taken over the years. Looking at the 1DXIII which the R6 sensor is based on I'm not actually seeing that much of an advantage from going to a larger sensor to operate these primes.

Oh well, back to getting EF mount lenses like a Sigma 60-600 or hoping that the 100-400 and 150-400's prices are within reach.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,197
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
It isn't a panacea for birding, at least in my personal experience. I've used a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with a TC to push it all the way to 420mm and for smaller birds I've found I can be still within 2-4 meters when they're not in flight. The frame fill factor makes a big difference, especially when I'm not cropping to 1/6 the original resolution. What benefits that were present on the R5 will be thrown away as a fraction of the sensor will be used and the R6 won't be able to frame fill easily, I suspect that at a minimum sticking on the 1.4x TC would be helpful for the R5.
Look at the other lens the 600 and 800 were released with, and the 2 Extenders.

These are complements to the 100-500/4.5-7.1 L which can also be used with the TCs. Canon is saying that with each super-tele mm reach, the use is less common, so they are dropping the cost and functionality, reasoning that $ will be spent on the L glass. That looks like the strategy.

A Canon R6 serious prosumer can go from 24mm to 1600mm with 4 lenses and 1 extender for less than US$10k. Add in the 35 and 85 to get to US$10k. All handheld with dual-stabilization. The 100-500 is almost the exact same size as the Oly 300/4. If one upgrades to the R5 and uses crop, that’s effectively getting an entire m43 system within the Canon. All prices before the inevitable discounting.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,269
Look at the other lens the 600 and 800 were released with, and the 2 Extenders.
100-500 price.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


These are complements to the 100-500/4.5-7.1 L which can also be used with the TCs. Canon is saying that with each super-tele mm reach, the use is less common, so they are dropping the cost and functionality, reasoning that $ will be spent on the L glass. That looks like the strategy.
You seem to believe optical performance is parity, just like you're deep into f/11 diffraction territory on the R5 which wipes out a lot of resolution. The 100-500 is the only worthwhile telephoto so far and I can already feel the mediocreness from the f/11 duo. I'll take the Sigma 60-600 in EF mount any day and be system agnostic instead. It seems like a far better option if you're serious about a telephoto and don't intend to compromise with a slow f/7.1 at 500mm.

All handheld with dual-stabilization.
double stabilization limits.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I will wait for real world testing to see how good the stabilization is, especially with how Sony, Nikon and (unfortunately to my disappointment) Fuji claims 5 stops only to deliver 1-3 in the real world dependent on the focal length.

The 100-500 is almost the exact same size as the Oly 300/4. If one upgrades to the R5 and uses crop, that’s effectively getting an entire m43 system within the Canon. All prices before the inevitable discounting.
A $3,899 body and a $2,699 lens, okay. I'm sure that'll discount all the way into oblivion. Realistically you're looking at $500-800 off and that's just enough to offset the taxes... Oh, at least it might go below $6k after the release price slaughterfest.

500mm x 1.4 = 700mm f/9.94. Time to see what aperture the 100-400s will yield at this rate, given something at around 350mm f/5 would be equal parity. Something a little slower and optically excellent should be sufficient to deal with it.
 

Pluttis

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
952
Location
Sweden
Real Name
Peter
It will be interesting to see how they perform against mft lenses. They are not going to give the 300Pro any competition, but if they are decent, they could be better options than the current 70/100-300 lenses. A comparison with the mft 100-400 ones will be key.
In what way would they be a better option if only decent performing?

If they optical only perform decent a mft 70/100-300 or slightly more expensive PL/Oly100-400 lens seams to be the better option as the zoom lenses have some adavatages that makes the way more versatile.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,895
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
The fixed aperture limitation of a mirror/reflex lens returns, but this time in a refractor lens.

I also noticed the HIGH ISO of the R5 is 51200 and the R6 is 102400. So the new R cameras can deal with these slow lenses better than the older cameras. Still, these are not LOW light lenses, even with the new R cameras.

The extending barrel design is an interesting way to shorten a stove pipe lens.
My brother's old manual 500 was a 2-piece lens. It separated in the middle, to make it shorter to transport.​
 
Last edited:

Pluttis

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
952
Location
Sweden
Real Name
Peter
Forced to shot with higher ISO is only one of the down sidea of these lenses.

Seams to be limitations when it comes to AF also as there is a reduction in overall focusing area...down to a 60 x 40 grid, which is similar to the autofocus area of the Canon EOS 6D Mark II.

AF speed will probably be fin in day light/good light but how will it perform when the light fall or you are in wood lands?

How will the AF be on the RP and R ?
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom