July 2020 RF Lenses RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 etc.

At a distance I would consider to be probably as close as you might get to wildlife, one can see the DOF is enough to keep a smaller bird from a side perspective in focus front to back. About the width of a trex decking board.... The farther I get away, the larger the DOF.

Tommydigi wrote in post #19092943
I’ll certainly be getting the 85. Paired with the 35 this is exactly what I seek in a small setup.

I’m interested in the 800 but I’m waiting to see. I may be better off with a 2x. For now I’ve been trying to use my 100-400 at f11 just to see if it’s useable.

For me the EF lenses are so good on the r and work on my other bodies I’m in no hurry but the future of the R looks very promising.

500 without the TC on a 45mp camera is like 600mm, no ?

to be perfectly honest

I was excited about the 100-500 when I read about it

But after using the sigma 150-600 and owning it for about 7 months

I am not one bit excited any of these new releases

Sigma and Tamrons 150-600's are excellent for the $$$

umphotography wrote in post #19094401
.
To be perfectly honest , I was excited about the 100-500 when I read about it, but after using the Sigma 150-600 and owning it for about 7 months, I am not one bit excited any of these new releases.

Sigma and Tamrons 150-600's are excellent for the $$$
.

.
A big, fast prime does kind of spoil most folks. . I know a lot of people who shoot with huge fast prime, and a lot of folks who are happy with their little 150-600mm zooms. . But I have yet to meet someone who has shot for years with a big fast prime and then switched over to a little 150-600 zoom and was happy with it.

For the more persnickety wildlife photographers, who are really picky about what they shoot and how they shoot it, once they get used to a huge fast prime they don't ever seem to be happy with a prosumer-level "superzoom".

My friend John shot with 3 different $10,000+ big whites for years. . He recently switched to Sony, and could only afford the 200-600mm for the time being ...... and it is absolutely killing him to be limited to that little zoom lens when he was used to a 600mm f4 and an 800mm f5.6 and a 200-400mm f4. . He can't wait for the day when he can afford to shoot with a "real" lens again.


.

MatthewK wrote in post #19093191
.
..... . Another thing to consider, is that with these new lenses and their 20' MFD and maximum f/11 aperture, birders shouldn't have any DOF problems, but on the same token they'll be faced with some demanding work in order to get a pleasing background blur, as distance to subject is so large due to that MFD, meaning they'll need a doubly distant background. That's preference, of course, as some shooters will prefer to have a sharp, in-focus background in order to present the subjects in their environment.

A 20' MFD presents another unique challenge because framing up a shot will need to be a much more considered, deliberate process, as does keeping a clear shooting lane free of leaves/twigs/etc. Having a short MFD with lenses like the 100-400 II and the 500PF make them ideal for impromptu close encounters, but with these new lenses I can see missing out on more shots due to subject flying under that 20' MFD.

I'm still thinking more about the ramifications of these lenses on how I'd employ them in my photography. It wouldn't be impossible, but it'd be a far cry from my learned preferences I now enjoy.
.

.
You bring up a really good point about the lenses having an affect on how we shoot.

Some wildlife and bird photographers like to go out into the woods or meadows or beaches and shoot whatever they happen to discover, or come upon.

Other bird and wildlife photographers like to take control of the shooting situation, and make sure that they are setting things up to ensure that the bird lands on a nice looking twig, has a nice looking, distraction-free background behind it, etc.

I think that the former benefits greatly from faster apertures, because they may need shutter speed to freeze unwanted motion, and shallower depth of field to blur out a busy or distracting background.

I think that the latter will be pretty much unaffected by a slow f11 aperture, because they are rather OCD about the photographs they take, and when shooting bird portraits they are only going to snap the shutter when the bird is entirely still for a moment. . They are also going to set out a nice looking perch for the bird to land on and make sure that they set it up where the background is free of distractions and far enough behind the bird to ensure a nice blur, even at f11 or smaller.

Personally, I am more pleased with photos that I am able to take full control of, so f11 lenses wouldn't be too much of a handicap for the kind of bird photography I like to do most. . But of course there are still some situations I shoot where a larger aperture is necessary, so an f11 lens would never be able to serve as my only bird lens; it would just be a complement to the lenses I already have, and brought out for the situations for which it was best suited, such as for birds in flight, or environmental portraiture at a cavity nest or at carefully manipulated set-ups.

EDIT:

Whoops - I forgot they are stuck at f11, so they wouldn't be useful at the cavity nests because I like f16 or f22 for that. . And forget using it for small birds at set-ups, because of its 20 foot MFD. . I have to get closer than 20 feet to a bird like a Warbler or a Wren in order to fill the frame with it. . So maybe they wouldn't be as useful as I thought. . Bummer. . That 20' MFD is really awful. . Cropping more than a wee little bit isn't really acceptable. . How in the world do they expect you to fill the frame when ......


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19094438
.
A big, fast prime does kind of spoil most folks. . I know a lot of people who shoot with huge fast prime, and a lot of folks who are happy with their little 150-600mm zooms. . But I have yet to meet someone who has shot for years with a big fast prime and then switched over to a little 150-600 zoom and was happy with it.

For the more persnickety wildlife photographers, who are really picky about what they shoot and how they shoot it, once they get used to a huge fast prime they don't ever seem to be happy with a prosumer-level "superzoom".

My friend John shot with 3 different $10,000+ big whites for years. . He recently switched to Sony, and could only afford the 200-600mm for the time being ...... and it is absolutely killing him to be limited to that little zoom lens when he was used to a 600mm f4 and an 800mm f5.6 and a 200-400mm f4. . He can't wait for the day when he can afford to shoot with a "real" lens again.

.

I really liked the 150-600. But I sold it because i was getting low balled on my version 1 300 F/2.8....decided to keep the 300. So its now my hiking lens and I will use a 1.4 TC a lot.....its going to get nice shots but I am going to miss the 150MM on the 150-600.

gives and takes...but im happy with my glass after the score i got on the 500F/4

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19094444
.
You bring up a really good point about the lenses having an affect on how we shoot.

Some wildlife and bird photographers like to go out into the woods or meadows or beaches and shoot whatever they happen to discover, or come upon.

Other bird and wildlife photographers like to take control of the shooting situation, and make sure that they are setting things up to ensure that the bird lands on a nice looking twig, has a nice looking, distraction-free background behind it, etc.

I think that the former benefits greatly from faster apertures, because they may need shutter speed to freeze unwanted motion, and shallower depth of field to blur out a busy or distracting background.

I think that the latter will be pretty much unaffected by a slow f11 aperture, because they are rather OCD about the photographs they take, and when shooting bird portraits they are only going to snap the shutter when the bird is entirely still for a moment. . They are also going to set out a nice looking perch for the bird to land on and make sure that they set it up where the background is free of distractions and far enough behind the bird to ensure a nice blur, even at f11 or smaller.

Personally, I am more pleased with photos that I am able to take full control of, so f11 lenses wouldn't be too much of a handicap for the kind of bird photography I like to do most. . But of course there are still some situations I shoot where a larger aperture is necessary, so an f11 lens would never be able to serve as my only bird lens; it would just be a complement to the lenses I already have, and brought out for the situations for which it was best suited, such as for birds in flight, or environmental portraiture at a cavity nest or at carefully manipulated set-ups.

EDIT:

Whoops - I forgot they are stuck at f11, so they wouldn't be useful at the cavity nests because I like f16 or f22 for that. . And forget using it for small birds at set-ups, because of its 20 foot MFD. . I have to get closer than 20 feet to a bird like a Warbler or a Wren in order to fill the frame with it. . So maybe they wouldn't be as useful as I thought. . Bummer. . That 20' MFD is really awful. . Cropping more than a wee little bit isn't really acceptable. . How in the world do they expect you to fill the frame when ......

.

They're basically spotting scopes. These new lenses will be applicable in a narrow set of circumstances, but for the price I suppose Canon needed to make some trade offs. If that 800mm had been a f/8 DO, I'd be in a tough spot right now trying to figure out whether or not I was switching back to Canon!

We've had this discussion numerous times before, Tom In your dichotomy, I definitely tend towards the more opportunistic, ad-hoc shooter that loathes using a tripod, yet that's not to say I don't go to great lengths to find the bird, pick out a desirable perch in it's area, predict the direction of the light, and then wait in a spot for a few hours for the right moment to shoot. The gear I use now was arrived at after a few years of experimentation and evaluation (of focal length, aperture speed, minimum focusing distance, weight/maneuverability​), and it gives me the most latitude to shoot in the largest range of conditions I'm likely to encounter in my region. The limitations of these new f/11 lenses would require too many sacrifices in how I shoot in order to make them a viable option. I don't want to be forced to conform to my gear, it should be the other way around.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19094438
.
A big, fast prime does kind of spoil most folks. . I know a lot of people who shoot with huge fast prime, and a lot of folks who are happy with their little 150-600mm zooms. . But I have yet to meet someone who has shot for years with a big fast prime and then switched over to a little 150-600 zoom and was happy with it.

For the more persnickety wildlife photographers, who are really picky about what they shoot and how they shoot it, once they get used to a huge fast prime they don't ever seem to be happy with a prosumer-level "superzoom".

My friend John shot with 3 different $10,000+ big whites for years. . He recently switched to Sony, and could only afford the 200-600mm for the time being ...... and it is absolutely killing him to be limited to that little zoom lens when he was used to a 600mm f4 and an 800mm f5.6 and a 200-400mm f4. . He can't wait for the day when he can afford to shoot with a "real" lens again.

.

It must be so awful for John, being forced to shoot at f/6.3... that's borderline cruel and inhumane. Please let him know that he's in my prayers. In his time of need, at least console him with the knowledge that he should be stopping down anyways, as 600mm @ f/4 is much too shallow a DOF, and John being a persnickety photographer and all, definitely wouldn't want half of his subject out of focus

.
I realize your post was in jest; at least partly so. . But I will reply to it as though it was serious.

John primarily shoots waterfowl and megafauna. . In those two sub-genres of wildlife photography there are often times when a large aperture and relatively shallow depth of field is preferable. . As for the type of set-up photography with small subjects at or near MFD, he rarely does that type of photography, as it is not typically very effective for his preferred subjects.

It does pretty much suck to shoot what he shoots the way he shoots it and be limited to f6.3 . . He is really looking forward to getting the Sony 600mm f4 in the near future.

Ideally, one will be fully equipped to shoot at ideal settings for any and all shooting scenarios that one encounters. . That means being able to shoot wide open at large apertures and also being able to stop down - way way down - when the situation calls for it. . Huge fast lenses allow one to have that high degree of versatility, while these lenses that are stuck at f11 really do limit the ways that you can compose a scene.

There are times when f11 is the ideal aperture for birds or wildlife, but often those times are when you want to shoot at closer than 20 feet ..... so the times when these 600mm or 800mm lenses would be the absolutely ideal choice would be few and far between.

I am getting the feeling that many people that end up using these lenses will do so not because they are the most perfect lenses for what they are shooting, but because they either can't afford anything better or don't feel like carrying anything heavier. . In either event, the images they take may not be as good as they could have been with a different lens.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19094622
.
I realize your post was in jest; at least partly so. . But I will reply to it as though it was serious.

John primarily shoots waterfowl and megafauna. . In those two sub-genres of wildlife photography there are often times when a large aperture and relatively shallow depth of field is preferable. . As for the type of set-up photography with small subjects at or near MFD, he rarely does that type of photography, as it is not typically very effective for his preferred subjects.

It does pretty much suck to shoot what he shoots the way he shoots it and be limited to f6.3 . . He is really looking forward to getting the Sony 600mm f4 in the near future.


.

It was somewhat in jest, somewhat serious, mainly in response to you and your friend's opinion describing the 200-600 as not being a "real lens". Tom, that lens is fantastic, and people are making some grand photos with it. Same with the 150-600s, great tools in the right hands. There are no "lesser" lenses, just better lenses for a particular job. Tools, not jewels

I will say that, coming from the Canon FF cameras and 400/500/600 f/4 big whites, to a measly Nikon crop camera and a slow 500 f/5.6, there hasn't been too many times where I thought "damn, that 1 stop loss of aperture is really killing me here". In fact, I don't think I've ever ran into that problem. If my background bokey sucks at f/5.6, it would have sucked at f/4 too because I didn't pick the right setup (background too close, too many specular highlights, etc). If the light sucks and f/5.6 is too slow, f/4 isn't going to make too much of a difference.

Who knows, maybe being stuck at f/11 isn't as bad as we're making it out to be? The thing is though, I am not going to spend the money to find out because I'm staying put right where I am

Also to add... there has been so much concern raised over DOF with long lenses, so why in the heck would one say f11 isn't enough sometimes for DOF control, then talk about 10K lenses like 600f4/800f4, etc.

If you cannot make high quality bird photography from lenses like the 100-400, 200-600 and think that you can only walk away with money shots with a fast long prime that cost the same as an AWD Infinity sedan, then I just have no more words.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19094669
Also to add... there has been so much concern raised over DOF with long lenses, so why in the heck would one say f11 isn't enough sometimes for DOF control, then talk about 10K lenses like 600f4/800f4, etc.

If you cannot make high quality bird photography from lenses like the 100-400, 200-600 and think that you can only walk away with money shots with a fast long prime that cost the same as an AWD Infinity sedan, then I just have no more words.

Absolutely, 100% agree.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19094669
.
Also to add... there has been so much concern raised over DOF with long lenses, so why in the heck would one say f11 isn't enough sometimes for DOF control, then talk about 10K lenses like 600f4/800f4, etc.
.

.
Because there are times when some of us want to have a huge depth of field, to make environmental portraits and to get so much of the scene, or subject, in focus. . And there are other times when we want to have a very shallow depth of field, so that we can isolate the subject, or even just part of the subject, from the surroundings, or because we are working with limited light. . And sometimes we want to do the former a few seconds after we have done the latter, and vice versa.

Some of us want to be able to go from one extreme to the other with the same lens, because sometimes we will want to take two very different kinds of images just a moment apart.

We want a lot of different types of images to be possible with one lens. . Versatility is extremely important to some wildlife and bird photographers. . And that versatility is most useful to us if we have it all in one package, because with wild animals, there often isn't time to switch from using one camera to another camera; nor is there time to switch lenses. . Of course, there is nothing wrong with having this mindset - it is totally fine for a photographer to want a wide array of possibilities available to them at any given instant.

I may spend a great amount of time and money to go thousands of miles to photograph a certain species. And then after all that effort I may only have a few minutes with that critter. In those few minutes - like literally 2 to 5 minutes - I will want to make as many different types of images as I can possibly think of at the moment. Classic portraiture showing just the head and bust. Full body portraiture. Environmental portraiture showing the entire animal as well as the habitat in which it lives. A close-up of a certain part of the animal that is unique, such as a deformed tine on an Elk's antler, or a Bison's bloodshot eye caused by fighting with another Bison. Then I will want several different poses of the classic head/bust portraiture - straight on, profile, from behind with the head turned back. Ditto for the full body portraiture. Then I will also want to capture any behavior that the animal exhibits during those 2 to 5 minutes. And I am trying to do all of this knowing that the animal is probably going to run off or disappear into the vegetation at any moment. To capture each and every one of these things in the best way possible means that I need gear that has a lot of versatility. Shooting wide and cropping just doesn't cut it. Been there, done that, and the results are never as good as properly composing the frame in-camera.


.

umphotography wrote in post #19094401
to be perfectly honest

I was excited about the 100-500 when I read about it

But after using the sigma 150-600 and owning it for about 7 months

I am not one bit excited any of these new releases

Sigma and Tamrons 150-600's are excellent for the $$$

canon 100-500 is 3.2 lbs. i'll take it on a 45mp body and give me the 800 while you're at it

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19094676
.
Because there are times when some of us want to have a huge depth of field, to make environmental portraits and to get so much of the scene, or subject, in focus. . And there are other times when we want to have a very shallow depth of field, so that we can isolate the subject, or even just part of the subject, from the surroundings, or because we are working with limited light. . And sometimes we want to do the former a few seconds after we have done the latter, and vice versa.

Some of us want to be able to go from one extreme to the other with the same lens, because sometimes we will want to take two very different kinds of images just a moment apart.

We want a lot of different types of images to be possible with one lens. . Versatility is extremely important to some wildlife and bird photographers. . And that versatility is most useful to us if we have it all in one package, because with wild animals, there often isn't time to switch from using one camera to another camera; nor is there time to switch lenses. . Of course, there is nothing wrong with having this mindset - it is totally fine for a photographer to want a wide array of possibilities available to them at any given instant.

I may spend a great amount of time and money to go thousands of miles to photograph a certain species. And then after all that effort I may only have a few minutes with that critter. In those few minutes - like literally 2 to 5 minutes - I will want to make as many different types of images as I can possibly think of at the moment. Classic portraiture showing just the head and bust. Full body portraiture. Environmental portraiture showing the entire animal as well as the habitat in which it lives. A close-up of a certain part of the animal that is unique, such as a deformed tine on an Elk's antler, or a Bison's bloodshot eye caused by fighting with another Bison. Then I will want several different poses of the classic head/bust portraiture - straight on, profile, from behind with the head turned back. Ditto for the full body portraiture. Then I will also want to capture any behavior that the animal exhibits during those 2 to 5 minutes. And I am trying to do all of this knowing that the animal is probably going to run off or disappear into the vegetation at any moment. To capture each and every one of these things in the best way possible means that I need gear that has a lot of versatility. Shooting wide and cropping just doesn't cut it. Been there, done that, and the results are never as good as properly composing the frame in-camera.

.

I like big apertures and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny

I have had the most irrational itch to purchase the 58 0.95 just to thumb my nose at people telling me they want to see more in focus.