New Lenses (Page 3): Agreed. For any sort of unusual or "extreme" lens $500 is a hopeless budget in todays $$, although theres some older used stuff selling for cheap. But for new...

User ID

Architect1776 wrote:

And the much shorter Nikon 180-600mm is still $1,700 way out of your $500 limit.
Even the Tamron 150-600mm much shorter lens is $1,400 still way above your $500 limit.

Agreed. For any sort of unusual or "extreme" lens $500 is a hopeless budget in todays $$, although theres some older used stuff selling for cheap. But for new, $500 goes nowhere.

-----------------------------------------------

Acoarst there will be the odd excepton. 16mm f:2.8 borders on unusual, and the RF edition is under $300 new. I guess the various $99 f:8.0 pancakes would also qualify as "unusual".

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

User ID wrote:

Agreed. For any sort of unusual or "extreme" lens $500 is a hopeless budget in todays $$, although theres some older used stuff selling for cheap. But for new, $500 goes nowhere.

-----------------------------------------------

Acoarst there will be the odd excepton. 16mm f:2.8 borders on unusual, and the RF edition is under $300 new. I guess the various $99 f:8.0 pancakes would also qualify as "unusual".

MDI Mainer

At first blush, f9 may seem shocking, but remember a 600mm max f6.3 zoom with a 1.4 TC looses one f stop of light, so that would be f9 too! So a real comparison would require knowing how the 600mm stops down from its maximum aperture.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

MDI Mainer wrote:

At first blush, f9 may seem shocking, but remember a 600mm max f6.3 zoom with a 1.4 TC looses one f stop of light, so that would be f9 too! So a real comparison would require knowing how the 600mm stops down from its maximum aperture.

Zooman 1

Have already ordered the RF 200-800mm, or I should say pre or back ordered! As far as the 800 F-11, I shoot mine and the 600 F-11 any time during the day and rely on auto ISO and topaz AI. If the 200-800 works out those 2 will be up for sale!

gwilliams6

MDI Mainer wrote:

At first blush, f9 may seem shocking, but remember a 600mm max f6.3 zoom with a 1.4 TC looses one f stop of light, so that would be f9 too! So a real comparison would require knowing how the 600mm stops down from its maximum aperture.

Exactly,

Gordon Laing's review has a chart which shows what many want to know about the Canon 200-800mm f6.3-9 lens, what max apertures at what focal lengths? : At 268mm the lens goes to f7.1; at 455mm the lens goes to f8; at 637mm to 800mm the lens is at f9.

So there are some wide aperture advantages with the Nikon 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 and Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 lenses in the 200mm to 600mm range.

At 263mm the Nikon and Sony lenses will have max aperture between f5.6 and f6.3, while this new Canon lens will have max aperture of f7.1 .

At 455mm to 600mm, the Nikon and Sony lenses will be at max aperture of f6.3, while this new Canon lens will have max aperture of f8.

And at 637mm to 800mm this new Canon lens has max aperture of F9.

So even this new lens has to make some max aperture compromises along the 200-600mm part of that 200-800mm focal range.

Gordon Laing first reviews:
200-800mm f6.3-9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJi_w00mm, and goes to f9 at 637mm. YxLV64&fbclid=IwAR1pVSB_G0M5aCqQd7WEmpomauoTlKJ5U86eu_Pzj-ec9yzDLzrwtXwoNqw

Cheers and best to you.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Zooman 1 wrote:

Have already ordered the RF 200-800mm, or I should say pre or back ordered! As far as the 800 F-11, I shoot mine and the 600 F-11 any time during the day and rely on auto ISO and topaz AI. If the 200-800 works out those 2 will be up for sale!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

gwilliams6 wrote:

Exactly, br br Gordon Laing's review has a chart ... (show quote)

If you look closely you are talking less than a stop difference.
The 200-800mm range totally swamps the short Sony and Nikon products for reach and usability for getting small distant subjects.
6.3 to 9 is one stop.
Additionally the 24-105mm at f 2.8 makes the old short 24-70mm Sony and Nikons obsolete and their 24-120/105mm painfully slow.

MDI Mainer

I think this may be a discussion best to have been had 20 years ago. With the speed and quality of today's sensors and autofocus processors, these differences in maximum aperture matter less and less. And even as far as composition, post processing programs can now do an acceptable job blurring the background.

That said, the CIZ on my Sony bodies easily gets my 600mm to 800, and credibly to 1200, with no loss of light when the reach is needed!

gwilliams6

Architect1776 wrote:

If you look closely you are talking less than a stop difference.
The 200-800mm range totally swamps the short Sony and Nikon products for reach and usability for getting small distant subjects.
6.3 to 9 is one stop.
Additionally the 24-105mm at f 2.8 makes the old short 24-70mm Sony and Nikons obsolete and their 24-120/105mm painfully slow.

I know the stop differences, and it is real. It is up to the individual photographer whether that makes a difference. But dont just come here and ask us to ignore the differences, they exist. The rest if us aren't blind Canon fanboys like you, LOL

About that 24-105mm f2.8;
Looks very good, but at a cost of 3500 pounds in the UK, not a lot of folks other than working pros will be able to justify the cost. It is unique, but it is also the most expensive, biggest and heaviest 24-105mm mirrorless lens on the planet. And the accessory external motor rig to use the power zoom feature adds even more weigh and bulk. There is a reason why it comes with a tripod foot.

As a longtime pro , I have owned and used all the best 24-105mm lenses from Nikon, Canon, Sony, Sigma, and for this pro I would not be spending for this new Canon, sorry Architect. Help yourself to it if it fits your needs and you can justify the cost/value/performance.

Cheers and best to you.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

MDI Mainer wrote:

I think this may be a discussion best to have been had 20 years ago. With the speed and quality of today's sensors and autofocus processors, these differences in maximum aperture matter less and less. And even as far as composition, post processing programs can now do an acceptable job blurring the background.

Then why all the hoopla over a Plena fast lens or a. 95 lens?
You are correct. Sensors have advanced and so has Canon.

Canisdirus

Bend over...here comes Canon.

Ghery Loc: Olympia, WA

Architect1776 wrote:

Three new lenses have been introduced today. br 1.... (show quote)

The question I have is this, are the RF lenses intended for their mirrorless cameras, or can they be used with, for example, the T8i?

gwilliams6

MDI Mainer wrote:

I think this may be a discussion best to have been had 20 years ago. With the speed and quality of today's sensors and autofocus processors, these differences in maximum aperture matter less and less. And even as far as composition, post processing programs can now do an acceptable job blurring the background.

That said, the CIZ on my Sony bodies easily gets my 600mm to 800, and credibly to 1200, with no loss of light when the reach is needed!

But it does matter to me and some pros who often work on the margins of ambient exposures but still want the best quality and the best shallow DOF and bokeh we can get, without paying $12k and more for a lens.

These lenses will do well among Canon users, I have no doubt. But they wont drive Nikon and Sony users to switch brands, that is for sure. And Associated Press, all Gannett media including USA Today, Canadian Press, and UK's top News Services that have all gone exclusively to Sony gear for their staff photographers and staff videographers worldwide, wont be changing to Canon because of these lenses, just a fact.

I am happy for Canon users to have more lens choices. Now let's hope Canon will FULLY open up its R-mount to ALL third-party lens makers, without restrictions or needed Canon approval . IMHO, I think that needed move will have a much greater positive impact for the vast majority of Canon R users, than these three lenses.

Cheers and best to you all.

tcthome Loc: NJ

billnikon wrote:

Even at $1900.00 this lens may not be in the ball park for the financially less fortunate. Usually the less financially fortunate have a budget around $500.00 tops.

I guess for that , we are talking used?