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

idkdc wrote in post #19110646
Weight too. I imagine trail running with the big whites was never an option, whereas these seem quite a bit more doable. I think as photographers, we’re a little nuts and feel fine lugging heavy equipment, but sometimes when friends and family want to not be photographers and enjoy hikes and runs on a brisk pace I think these f/11 lenses would do nicely as a compromise to getting new friends (and family at the extreme) .

There's also the incognito factor; a narrow, black lens is less likely to draw unwanted attention, including that of security guards who have never seen big whites before, or robbers, or just plain old buffoons who have to drop their jaw and demand your attention to say something inane while you're busy shooting. I've stopped using the lens hood on my 400/4DO II because the flare rejection is so good (and I avoid shooting towards the light, anyway), and the hood makes the lens draw more attention.

umphotography wrote in post #19096671
you are not going to hand hold these 600-800mm lens and get consistent results....in my opinion

These things will need to be on Mono or tri pods

Think telescope....thats basically what they are

I handle 800mm on the 90D all of the time, and anything static in the scene, like the focused part of the ground, shows no motion blur in the majority of the images. Every once in a while (maybe 1% to 2% of frames) the IS jumps and blurs the image a lot, while re-centering itself.

Not a challenge at all, at twice the pixel density of the R5, and 4x that of the R6, even with no added IBIS, and mirror slap included.

Most of the blur with modern IS systems is due to moving the lens around, or subject motion.

Using higher pixel densities and/or longer focal lengths than you were previously accustomed to reveals how barely stable your previous technique may have been.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19096692
.
If people are routinely going to handhold 600mm and 800mm lenses when they're shooting at f11, then I think they will have a lot of disappointment, because of the slower shutter speeds or higher ISO that they will need to use, relative to what they are used to using with their f5.6 and f6.3 lenses.

There's a reason why the world's top professionals are still using tripods for most of their long lens wildlife photography. . In many situations, tripod use often produces professional results ..... in situations where handholding will only permit amateur results.

.

You seem to be drawn to relatively docile subjects. A tripod will then allow a slower shutter speed, but lots of subjects can't be shot reliably with those slow shutter speeds. With many possible subjects, their motion is the only thing dictating shutter speed, and neither a tripod nor IS can do anything about subject motion.

You can slum on shutter speed quite a bit with a good IS system for less active subjects, if you shoot bursts and take the best of the burst, or take a series of individual frames while relaxing consciously. I've shot the 90D with its 83MP FF pixel density at 1/20 with 800mm, and had maybe 10%-20% that don't show motion blur.

One has to decide if spontaneity, or near-100% keepers at slow shutter speeds, are what are most important to them. Photography has a lot of trade-off decisions, where each decision has its advantages and disadvantages. You seem to be about setting up for the best possible images (a platonic photographer, if you will), while other people may want a broader arbitrary sampling of what is really out there, and don't want to miss any of it, waiting for more ideal photo-ops.

MatthewK wrote in post #19096731
These lenses are lighter than my 500PF, which I can hand hold for days on end, so unless these 600/800 DO lenses are really oddly balanced, they'll be a breeze to hand hold and get decent results if the conditions are conducive to their limitations.

A good bat/swallow lens, for sure. Large-aperture lenses and dense construction give a lens too much momentum when accelerating, decelerating, and changing direction.

Amen.

A tripod is there just to help stop your own motion, but in addition to what John states, in lieu of a tripod, a good IS system, a good shutter speed to stop the subject's movement, and a good handholding technique doesn't mean you are an amateur. Perhaps knowing and implementing these is more complicated than popping a camera on a tripod to aim at subjects.

A wildlife shooter that sits still in a location to shoot what is around him/her is likely doing that because the constant picking up and putting down of gear is very tedious vs having a tripod there holding the gear, always "ready" for the shot.

Certain professional wildlife shooters don't always (and sometimes rarely) use tripods in fact. Those that are always on the move aren't using tripods. Those that sit still in a location and wait for the wildlife to appear around them might. Sometimes a monopod is even better than a tripod, but that wasn't mentioned. To paint everyone as amateur or professional simply because they use a tripod or not is pretty silly.

For example, I shoot the moon handheld at 1/320th or slower sometimes, and that is running at 400 * 2x * 1.6x = 1280mm, and that is a torture test if there ever is one.

MatthewK wrote in post #19096829
Jake, I read somewhere that R5/R6 IBIS won't be active when using the 600/800 DO lenses, so only 4/5 stops of lens IS, respectively. Trying to find that spec, please standby...

That would make sense if the lens is designed to do very good stabilation, combined with the 20-feet minimum focus, which means very little translational blur to correct. I would assume that many of the IBIS features not covered by lens IS are for close focus.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19110926
.
For example, I shoot the moon handheld at 1/320th or slower sometimes, and that is running at 400 * 2x * 1.6x = 1280mm, and that is a torture test if there ever is one.
.

.
I've been meaning to ask you why you shoot the moon handheld, instead of setting up on a tripod. . Meant to ask that a week or two ago, but forgot to do so.

I was wondering if there is some technical advantage to not using a tripod, that results in better images, or if it is just about convenience and/or saving time.

.

DreDaze wrote in post #19110800
1/6 is pretty rough for anything that has a pulse...great for car license plates...but that'd be hard for a lot of birds...but your ISO was low...so not too hard to get that up to a slightly usable shutter speed.

Yes, ISO super low specifically so I could see how low I could go on shutter handheld. True, anything live or moving is gong to need a faster shutter but for any static subject it shows that the IS really is something. Combine that with improved ISO performance and these lenses may be a bit more useful than some of the original concerns.

For this boat shot I pushed shutter way faster than needed because I wanted the high ISO, I would consider this ISO 12800 shot from the R perfectly usable after very minor noise tweaking in PSE on iPad. This was about 6:40 PM with the sun starting to go down.

EV calculator with 1/6400 and 12800 calls it at 12.67

1/125 shutter and ISO 12800 would get you to EV 7

1/250 shutter and ISO 51200 would get you to EV 2.67

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19110964
.
I've been meaning to ask you why you shoot the moon handheld, instead of setting up on a tripod. . Meant to ask that a week or two ago, but forgot to do so.

I was wondering if there is some technical advantage to not using a tripod, that results in better images, or if it is just about convenience and/or saving time.

.

Convenience and bulk mostly I feel. Usually I do take a monopod because it is a happy compromise and acts like a walking stick too if you are hiking. I am pretty good at handholding 400mm or a bit more without IS down to 1/240th or so without very noticeable blur, but I was better when I was younger.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19111059
Convenience and bulk mostly I feel. Usually I do take a monopod because it is a happy compromise and acts like a walking stick too if you are hiking. I am pretty good at handholding 400mm or a bit more without IS down to 1/240th or so without very noticeable blur, but I was better when I was younger.

My friend showed me the peak design travel tripod. It was quite compact and not bad with weight capacity and a much better weight to strength ratio than the Chinese carbon fiber tripods.

I’m waiting on the RRS version which got delayed due to COVID for some reason (probably they didn’t want to invest in the tooling until economic conditions improve).

idkdc wrote in post #19111069
My friend showed me the peak design travel tripod. It was quite compact and not bad with weight capacity and a much better weight to strength ratio than the Chinese carbon fiber tripods.

I’m waiting on the RRS version which got delayed due to COVID for some reason (probably they didn’t want to invest in the tooling until economic conditions improve).

I've got the PD travel, in carbon; it's nice enough and a solid alternative to the other travel options out there. It has a little more flex in some places than my MeFoto Roadtrip, but some of the features are nice, like being able to tilt the ball to portrait in nearly any orientation instead of a single detente. It's also a little more susceptible to induced vibration, but it clamps that back down *much* quicker.

Snydremark wrote in post #19111129
I've got the PD travel, in carbon; it's nice enough and a solid alternative to the other travel options out there. It has a little more flex in some places than my MeFoto Roadtrip, but some of the features are nice, like being able to tilt the ball to portrait in nearly any orientation instead of a single detente. It's also a little more susceptible to induced vibration, but it clamps that back down *much* quicker.

From my short time playing with it, I absolutely loved the integrated leveling function, and the fact that the ballhead can hold up a heavy DSLR with bulbous tilt shift lens. Not even my maligned, overpriced (imho), still-heavy piece of crap Arcatech GP-S can do that (I have since moved on to bulkier RRS stuff).

I wish I had got in on the Kickstarter pricing. It’s definitely pretty pennies right now, and I’m kind of waiting for RRS’s take before making a purchase.

When I first read about these lenses, especially the 800 f/11, I thought they were a joke. But, having considered the situation since, and looking at the DFA for FF 20Mp, 30Mp cameras, i.e the R6 and R, I have come to the conclusion that this is a brilliant move by Canon.

Rather than come out with another set of master-of-all-trades lenses Canon have designed and marketed a set of lenses that are optimized for only one focal length and one aperture, with the only included frill being an IS unit. As a result, they are dirt cheap in comparison to traditional super telephoto optics, physically short, and extremely light. A DO version of a mirror lens.

No one else has lenses like these; it will be interesting to see if we have any copy-cats from other manufacturers. Yet another reason to acquire an RF mount camera body.

russbecker wrote in post #19114531
When I first read about these lenses, especially the 800 f/11, I thought they were a joke. But, having considered the situation since, and looking at the DFA for FF 20Mp, 30Mp cameras, i.e the R6 and R, I have come to the conclusion that this is a brilliant move by Canon.

It is really pretty much the same thing on an R6, photographically, as using a sharp 400/5.6 on a 20MP m43 camera. On the R5, it's like a sharp 400/5.6 with a non-existent 45MP m43 body.

Mirror lenses have served that purpose for a long time, but at least with these 2 new lenses, you don't get that donut bokeh.