[lesmore49]

Got an email from Canon that has a Canon RF 800mm F 11 lens for $ 1250 or so. Now F 11 limits things a bit, to nice, sunny days for the most part, but still what a reach...800mm for a bit over $ 1200 CDN.

Wonder if this will be a hit or not ?

[surfar]

10% of the cost of a similar BigWhite,so definitely a hit price wise.The weight is a lot nicer too.

[richfam]

The fixed f/11 generated a lot of derisive comments when the lens was first announced, but reviews have been very favorable and people actually using it in the field seem to love it. With that combination of size/weight/reach & price I think that Canon does indeed have a hit on their hands.

[luftfluss]

The fixed f/11 generated a lot of derisive comments when the lens was first announced, but reviews have been very favorable and people actually using it in the field seem to love it. With that combination of size/weight/reach & price I think that Canon does indeed have a hit on their hands.

Yeah, the keyboard warriors had a field day when the lens was released... and many of those guys once shot an APS-C body with 100-400/5.6 L.

Lens does well (photos from Canon R forum on DPR):

[lesmore49]

The fixed f/11 generated a lot of derisive comments when the lens was first announced, but reviews have been very favorable and people actually using it in the field seem to love it. With that combination of size/weight/reach & price I think that Canon does indeed have a hit on their hands.

I have a Sigma 150-500 lens and although it is an F 5.6 to F 6.3 (forgive me if I'm wrong, I haven't checked in a long while) ...invariably when I use it (usually @ 500mm).

I set the F stop between F 9 to F 11, mostly F 10-F 11 to ensure adequate depth of field on the subject @ 500 mm.

Now this lens is an 800 mm...wow...if I may add. If I had this 800 mm lens, I would have no trouble setting it at F 11, as that is pretty well what I set my 500 at, with options to go to F 6.3...if I wish, but usually don't for the aforementioned reasons.

Given depth of field and 800 mm, I think F 11 would be just fine, as I also would be mostly using this lens during bright, sunny days. Given a modern cameras ability to produce great, not too grainy images at higher ISO...well the F stop issue is not as much of an issue anymore.

However, before I put my 1250 bucks down on the counter, I think I would like to try it out....even if it's out in front of the camera store, in the parking lot...just to see if I could hand hold it, and get a clear picture of that '07 Buick's license plate at the far end of the lot.

[surfar]

if I could hand hold it,

Chelsea Northrup does, she uses it on an R5.The R6 has the same IBIS mech so similar stabilisation.

The R and RP use the lens stabIS and in camera digital StabIS,people using these early bodies are reporting good results.

---------- Post added 02-17-21 at 04:01 PM ----------

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

......................................................

[Wasp]

Modern sensors do well with high ISO - the f/11 aperture is not a hardship. I think it is genius.

[repaap]

I just looked couple of reviews from 800/11 + R6&R5, since they seem to hve the best DR and ISO performance with RF mount. It is a bargain if all you need is that 800 mm. In a good light. From those examles one can see clearly the impact of high ISO and no so stellar lens, lie for example 5,6 or f4 lenses are or even 6.7, meaning that they are bigger and need TC when you are shooting.


BUT, if you know this and are shooting in good light and don't want to invest a lot of money since you'll be birding just occasionally and want to fit it in your normal bag, seems that you could be quite good with this and latest Canon. It still is quite special lens, with restrictions, so it is still a lot of money. with busy background it was ugly bokeh especially if the target was little more further away. With clear BG or closer up targets it is nice.

I'd choose propably 150-600 + TC. Bigger, but more flexibe combo and price difference is not that much.

[TomB_tx]

Back in the 1960s - when Leica was still relevant - they released a 400mm f6.8 lens for handheld "snapshots" - used at the 1968 presidential conventions by David Douglas Duncan - where I saw it on TV news coverage. Lightweight lens with "trombone" focusing and removable shoulder support. It was also ridiculed for small aperture at a time when ASA 400 was fast film. But I still remember them showing a shot of Hubert Humphrey enlarged to 16x20, taken hand-held from across the convention hall. D.D.D. said it would not have been possible without that lens. It was not a "telephoto" - just a simple long-focus 2-element lens, but very effective.
It was designed to be used wide-open. I picked one up a while back, and have used it with the shoulder support on an A7, and it is quite effective.

[normhead]

Got an email from Canon that has a Canon RF 800mm F 11 lens for $ 1250 or so. Now F 11 limits things a bit, to nice, sunny days for the most part, but still what a reach...800mm for a bit over $ 1200 CDN.

Wonder if this will be a hit or not ?

ƒ11.... seriously?

I was out shooting my feeder birds last night. It turned out ƒ5.6 was barely manageable. Shooting in bright direct sun, is rarely feasible, and for birds 1/1000s is preferable. And have you noticed noticed that in bright sunlight, the birds tend to stay in the shadows, so some serious DR will be needed. Canon must have built some serious noise reduction into the high ISO to help folks keep their shutter speed up.

I could use this lens, no question, would I want to have to deal with the limitations of ƒ11? Not intentionally.

I've never seriously considered an ƒ8 lens, forget about ƒ11.

My Tammy 2.8 is 510mm with the 1.7x. FF equivalent field of view would be 750mm APS-c and ƒ4.5. But it it's light enough..... the other issue being, ƒ11 is so far past the diffraction limit, if you do get good light, you won't be able to go for the top tier image, even if you have the best conditions for an ƒ4, ƒ5.6 or ƒ8 lens.

I like the posted images....stationary birds in direct sun. But I could post a thousand images that couldn't have been taken with it. Here's one


But for some one who just wants something.... it's something.

[luftfluss]

ƒ11.... seriously?

I was out shooting my feeder birds last night. It turned out ƒ5.6 was barely manageable. Shooting in bright direct sun, is rarely feasible, and for birds 1/1000s is preferable. And have you noticed noticed that in bright sunlight, the birds tend to stay in the shadows, so some serious DR will be needed. Canon must have built some serious noise reduction into the high ISO to help folks keep their shutter speed up.

I could use this lens, no question, would I want to have to deal with the limitations of ƒ11? Not intentionally.

I've never seriously considered an ƒ8 lens, forget about ƒ11.

My Tammy 2.8 is 510mm with the 1.7x. FF equivalent field of view would be 750mm APS-c and ƒ4.5. But it it's light enough..... the other issue being, ƒ11 is so far past the diffraction limit, if you do get good light, you won't be able to go for the top tier image, even if you have the best conditions for an ƒ4, ƒ5.6 or ƒ8 lens.

I like the posted images....stationary birds in direct sun. But I could post a thousand images that couldn't have been taken with it. Here's one


But for some one who just wants something.... it's something.

F/11 is not a big deal on full frame for this sort of lens. Keep in mind that here in Pentaxland, folks shoot the DFA 150-450 coupled with the 1.4x TC, so that's f/8 to start.

The blue jay you posted was taken with your K-3... the Canon R6 has a nearly 2 stop advantage in noise performance compared with the K-3.

Back to diffraction... here's a sharpness measurement by Optical Limits of the Canon 100-500L @ 500mm...

[luftfluss]

Oh yeah, here's a green heron in the shade, shot with my K-3 II + K 135-600 @ 600mm, f/8 or 9/5, can't remember which specifically...

[normhead]

Interesting....


Those numbers are much better than I would have expected. Understanding what diffraction is and it's cause, I can only assume that the aperture for a lens that long has a much bigger aperture to produce ƒ11, and therefor a different diffraction limit than a shorter lens.

Anyone else have awake here. This is simply an educated guess.
The kinds of charts I'm used to like the 21 ltd.show much more diffraction by ƒ11 showing a drop of 19% resolution from their peak.



It should also be noted that diffraction affects smaller pixels more than larger ones.

Diffraction on the FA 31 on A K-5 (16 MP)


And on a K-10 10 MP

Notice how much the image "deteriorates" at 16 MP compared to 10. Imagine what it would look like at 24 MP.

So I'm assuming that your original post would be consderably weaker on Canon's 51 MP camera.

Interesting stuff. You learn something new everyday.

Longer lenses suffer less from diffraction as you stop down than shorter lenses. Good to know stuff.

[luftfluss]

I know very little about how diffraction works, but from what I've read, the greater the pixel density the earlier diffraction sets in... e.g. a 45MP Canon R5 will hit diffraction at a larger aperture than a 20MP Canon R6 will.

The upshot of the Canon RF 800 is that it is first-party, 800mm, small & light, decently sharp, and only $899 USD. IMO a significant downside is it lacks weather-sealing. Given how far the lens extends, will it wind up being a dust-pump?

I mean, this thing is small...

[normhead]

Diffraction and CA should be measured as a fraction of the number of pixels affected. See the article linked above. I look for lenses rated at 0.7 pixels of CA or less. Very few zooms measure up. The corollary being, for a camera with relatively large pixels you need less correction. Hence the cost of 4/3 lenses and 1 inch sensor cameras. The lenses are smaller, but they have to be so much better.

Part of the beauty of the K-1 is it was designed with virtually the same pixel pick as the K-5, meaning any FF capable lens designed for a K-5 or later is right in it's wheel house.

I'm still a little hesitant to comment on the viability of some of my lenses on a K-3. Especially older film lenses like the F 70-210.